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.'"

Comments

Default Browser

[timeOday]

What does the "default browser" setting actually do? I always run the browser by clicking the "firefox" icon (or "internet explorer," if necessary). So I don't see when the "default browser" is invoked.

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

When you click on an html file or a link in some other program, the default browser is opened.

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

e.g.

if you open a HTML file on your disk by just double clicking, it will be opened with yuor default browser ;)

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

The one that opens documents locally, when you doubleclick on them.

Re:Default Browser

[MagdJTK]

On my mac it's used a lot. My RSS reader will open stories in the default browser and my IM client can insert a link to your current page (in your default browser) among other things. Of course, the installation is just drag-and-drop so this story doesn't really apply yet (I believe they're adding an installer, though I have no idea why).

Re:Default Browser

[multi-flavor-geek]

I think that is so that when you hit one of those "internet" buttons on your keyboard (you know, right next to the big red PANIC button, it will bring up Firefox, or when you click a link in an email or something (if you would be inclined to do such a thing).

Re:Default Browser

[J_DarkElf]

And on XP and Vista, the default browser is also registered in the start menu as the 'internet' application. Which means it gets the top icon in the left row of the default setup.

And any program which follows the guidelines will launch it, and not a hardcoded internet explorer.

Re:Default Browser

[pablomme]

And any program which follows the guidelines will launch it, and not a hardcoded internet explorer. Like Windows Live Messenger, which pops up IE regardless of the default browser setting. One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects..

Re:Default Browser

[Touvan]

The top icon in the start menu on Windows XP (most people) is (usually) whatever the default browser is.

Re:Default Browser

[DCstewieG]

One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects.. A cynic might imagine they understand this quite well.

1. Casual Firefox user clicks link from friend
2. IE opens asking if it should be set as the default
3. An IE user is reborn

I suppose this list replaces the ??? between "ignore system setting" and "Profit!"

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same point, a realistically thinking person would realize that Microsoft wrote the software, so of course they're going to force you (yet again) to use internet explorer.

Re:Default Browser

[Khuffie]

I have my default browser as Opera. Clicking on a link in a Messenger window opens it in Opera.

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

those "internet" buttons on your keyboard (you know, right next to the big red PANIC button Wonder if it's as useful as the panic button in an airplane I used to rent: as a joke someone bought a stick on panic button that was just glued to the dash so that in case of emergency, you could press it. It didn't do a darned thing, but if it makes you feel better to have a button to press, press away :).

Re:Default Browser

[pablomme]

Try clicking on the 'mail' icon in the main window.

Re:Default Browser

[blackspy]

..but open your hotmail inbox, if you have one, it will use IE regardless of you browser settings.

Re:Default Browser

[Rogerborg]

Start -> Run -> www.mozilla.org

Re:Default Browser

[Khuffie]

I have that button hidden since I don't use hotmail ;)

Re:Default Browser

[master811]

This is easily fixed with Msg Live Plus however, and I think a few other addons do the same, so its not really an issue as I use Msg Plus anyway.

Re:Default Browser

[master811]

Oops I meant the mess.be (or stuff plug - I think)addon, Msg Live Plus doesn't have that option.

Re:Default Browser

[digitrev]

Which is exactly why I use Thunderbird. Actually, that's more of a side benefit of using Thunderbird (well, at least after you install and configure the add-on to let you do that). I really use Thunderbird because I have 6 different e-mail addresses, all active for various reasons: one for school (HAVE to check that one, so I just forward it to another e-mail), one hotmail for signing up for various crap on the internet, one gmail for e-mailing other people, one gmail for slightly professional looking service (at least until I move out and get an ISP linked address), and one gmail for anonymity. Oh, and another collective e-mail for the podcast I'm part of. Between that, Firefox, and SharpReader (an rss feed), I rarely have to use IE.

Re:Default Browser

[digitrev]

Thank god I'm not the only person who still uses the run box. Nine times out of ten, it's faster than using my mouse. I just Win Key , R, firefox, and go. Or, if I really need to access iexplore, it's Win Key, R, iexplore , and go. My typing is much faster than my mousing, so anything that prevents me from using that damned mouse is perfect for me.

Re:Default Browser

[Vectronic]

MessPatch, ( http://www.mess.be/ if its online ) it's not really an addon, its just a hex editor (underneath) that sets some of MSN's options differently.

Ive never used MSN Plus, because from the get-go like 5 years ago, ive heard nothing but bad things about it.

Myself (while on Windows) I use the "Simple" patch for MSN 7.5 (ie: setting the compatability mode to Win 2K, so it doesnt bitch about updating to MSN Live), does what I need, sends and receives messages.

Re:Default Browser

[treeves]

I don't have a "Win" key, you insensitive clod!

Actually, I use a little utility called Launchy and whenever I want to start an app (not using the Start menu), I hit Alt-Space and type the first few letters and hit Return...

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Live Messenger opens links with Firefox for me. You are doing it wrong.

Re:Default Browser

[Knifa]

Firefox seems to open for me D:

Re:Default Browser

[Mister Whirly]

Actually, most of the "hot" buttons on keyboards can be configured to open any application when you push them. They go by their own configuration settings, not OS defaults.

Re:Default Browser

[tuaris]

Well then what we need is some kind of monitoring program that comes installed with Firefox to detect when the default browser is being changed. If a change is detected, the program will pop up and warn the user. Of course, the default visible option would be to "restore Firefox as my default browser")

Re:Default Browser

[value_added]

Nine times out of ten, it's faster than using my mouse.

Assuming those nine programs are in your path, which typically they're not.

What I do is create a directory that I add to my path that's populated with nothing but symlinks (I use Cygwin, but ordinary Windows shortcuts should do) to every program, .cpl or .msc file I could possibly want to run. Renaming and lower-casing everything also goes a long way to a saner environment, and helps with the typing as well.

Re:Default Browser

[digitrev]

Ah, but for me, they usually are in my path. Well, the ones I rely on most heavily. That is to say: firefox, iexplore, msnmsgr, winmine, sol, and (when I still used MS Office) excel and winword. My other main programs (SharpReader, Thunderbird, Winamp) are almost always open anyways, or open on startup so I don't mind the few seconds it takes to navigate the start menu (which I do by keyboard anyways). However, I am curious as to how I can create those shortcuts. What exactly is the path that you refer to? Keep in mind that I am using XP.

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects.. A cynic might imagine they understand this quite well.

1. Casual Firefox user clicks link from friend
2. IE opens asking if it should be set as the default
3. An IE user is reborn

I suppose this list replaces the ??? between "ignore system setting" and "Profit!" Why is it that every time I click a link from a friend the internet rearranges itself! Why won't it just settle on one layout!

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here with Firefox. Works with both Windows Messenger, MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger.

Re:Default Browser

[kayditty]

I don't have a "Win" key, you insensitive clod!

So Use Ctrl+Esc.

Re:Default Browser

[kayditty]

Also, why would you want to override the natural behavior of Alt-Space (opening the program menu)? It's very useful. On the other hand, you avoid the potential embarrassment from heeding the commands of IRC pranksters: 'hit alt-space then type cookie jar for fun!!.'

Re:Default Browser

[toddestan]

I'm guessing that a few people at Microsoft also do as you do, after examining the new Start menu in Vista.

Re:Default Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Dur, my computar is really important, durr.

What's the RIGHT number?

[_bug_]

Firefox @ 16%
Firefox @ 18%
Firefox @ 40%

So which one is right?

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Jellybob]

Depends which segment of internet users you're looking at.

Certainly the w3schools is probably wildly off for the majority of internet users, since the people visiting the site are probably involved in web design or development, and are far more likely to be using a different web browser.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[JustinOpinion]

It's impossible to pick one right number... because it depends on many things. For one thing, the demographics for different sites are different, and there is undoubtedly a correlation between personal interests and selection of web-browser.

Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing the numbers. An overall share of 15% to 30% seems reasonable.

All that to say: I wouldn't worry too much about the exact numbers. What's more significant is the trends that can be seen across data-sets. Firefox had a rapid rise in popularity early on, but that leveled off. Rather than focus on an arbitrary threshold, like "breaks 20%!", I think the real story here is that Firefox usage continues to grow. Slowly but steadily the browser market is becoming more balanced.

This is significant, because a few years back, there was a real browser monopoly. I remember using the Firefox pre-1.0 betas, and many sites didn't work (they were tailor-made for IE). Nowadays, the vast majority of sites render perfectly in Firefox.

This is one of those cases where I think we won. Websites are more compliant than they once were. Alternate browsers are taken seriously. This is what we clamored for a few years ago... and we've largely achieved it!

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do metrics for a very large, mainstream sight. Our demographics are skewed somewhat towards moms, but we have a broad spectrum of users.

Last time I checked browser numbers, firefox was were coming in slightly under 20%.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[teh kurisu]

I use Safari for day-to-day browsing, but tend to use Firefox for web development because of Firebug (I know Safari has something similar, but I haven't quite got round to using it). So I'm more likely to be using Firefox when I visit w3schools.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[JasterBobaMereel]

It's Simple...

If 0.01% of your potential customers cannot use your website ... you shrug and get on with your work

If a fifth of your potential customers cannot use your website... you fix it!

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[PawNtheSandman]

16 + 18 + 40 = 74 74/3=24.666666666 So a safe estimate would be 25%

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Alwin Henseler]

It's impossible to pick one right number... because it depends on many things. Yep - so the bad news: some internet users will not even have heard of Mozilla, or Firefox. And the good news: among specific user groups, Firefox has reached 100% market share.

This is one of those cases where I think we won. Websites are more compliant than they once were. Alternate browsers are taken seriously. This is what we clamored for a few years ago... and we've largely achieved it! Which (among others) is an important reason I use Firefox. Simply to let organisations & companies know that I prefer a web built on open & supported standards, rather than 'renders okay in your binary-blob-of-choice'. If I'm on a webstore, and I can't navigate, or see details for what's on sale because of some stupid "use IE 6/7 on at least 1024x768 for viewing this site" or similar, than too bad, that store will lose my sale, not my problem. If as a merchant you want to sell things to 100% of potential customers, regardless of what browser they use, then simply code to standards (and test with different browsers), period. For government sites, I think they should have a requirement to be accessible using published standards/protocols (and thus with a tool of choice). In some cases this is codified in law, but implementation isn't always done as it should be (and no-one keeping oversight).

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Derek Pomery]

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Don't forget w3counter.
27.46%

w3schools of course is totally off, but w3counter on the other hand...

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Stooshie]

Last time I checked browser numbers, firefox was were coming in slightly under 20%.

That's where the "Next Month" bit comes in.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Stooshie]

Perhaps, but you'd have to weight the figures for reliability/bias etc...

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

This is one of those cases where I think we won. This is what we clamored for a few years ago... and we've largely achieved it!

Next stop: The Year Of Linux On The Desktop!
<grin>

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Winckle]

It did always confuse me yeah, I mean in total, mac users and firefox users must make up some large part of the web browsing population. Certainly large enough that you can't simply write them off.

In the real world shops have disabled ramps, merchants don't simply write off all possible disabled/injured customers and say they can do without those sales. It's about time web developer attitudes caught up.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[TheRaven64]

Firebug (I know Safari has something similar, but I haven't quite got round to using it) I'd not heard of FireBug, but I just had a look. Safari 3.1's developer support is a lot nicer than it used to be. It gives nice helpful error messages with JavaScript and the element inspector is really good. Even after a quick glance at FireBug, however, it is obvious that it has quite a few features that Safari lacks (breakpoints in JavaScript look like the most useful).

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[WK2]

This is one of those cases where I think we won. Websites are more compliant than they once were. Alternate browsers are taken seriously. This is what we clamored for a few years ago... and we've largely achieved it!

Not to burst your bubble, but this isn't true at all. Estimated from personal observation, 90% of web sites which claim to be (X)HTML compliant are not. Those which do not claim so are probably less likely to be compliant. A few years ago, more than 99% of all web pages were broken, and I believe that is still the case.

What you are seeing is advancements in Firefox. Firefox is much better at rendering broken pages like IE does.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[VGPowerlord]

As an aside, I work for a division of one of the state governments, and (at least) our division is required to test webapps to make sure they work in both Firefox and IE.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[canuck57]

Firefox @ 16%
Firefox @ 18%
Firefox @ 40%

So which one is right?

Lets see (16+18+40)/3

24% sounds close.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Snover]

merchants don't simply write off all possible disabled/injured customers and say they can do without those sales

Actually, many of them probably would if they could, but the Americans with Disabilities Act makes it illegal to do so.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah.

I wasn't contradicting the report. I was responding to someone who wanted to know what the 'correct' number is. The 'just under 20%' bit was more intended as support.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

The data from my company's website is
Firefox 14.6%
Safari 0.4%
MSIE 84.8%
Others: 0.2% (Opera mostly, though there is a hit from Lynx which baffles me)

I compared it to last year. Firefox was sitting at 8% for me with MSIE at 91%. The year prior had Firefox at 2% with MSIE at 95%.

The company caters to a lot of older clients which impresses me that we have hit nearly 15% with a segment that usually sticks to what they know and are not willing to try anything new.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

28.2% actually include 1.0 and 3.0

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[zenslug]

I am in love with Firebug and have been for about 2 years now. The biggest things that are lacking in other browsers' dev tools are breakpoints in Javascript and the ability to inspect the HTML + CSS, including the ability to do live editing. I was very disappointed when Safari was announced for Windows, but really only because of the lack of dev tools. And Safari 3 is a lot better than Safari 2, so that helps as well.

What tools do you use on Safari?

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm on a webstore, and I can't navigate, or see details for what's on sale because of some stupid "use IE 6/7 on at least 1024x768 for viewing this site" or similar, than too bad, that store will lose my sale, not my problem.

When you do so, I hope you also take the time to use the page's "Contact Us" button and let them know why they lost your sale. I've done so multiple times in the past and even got a response a few times. Often, the merchant is 100% clueless that there is such a thing as "web standards" or that the person or group they hired to build the website is incompetent in such regards.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[k1e0x]

Could also eepend if they split IE 6 and IE 7 up.

If you split up IE 6 and 7 up then Firefox has about 39% and is the most popular browser. Personally I think this is fair as IE 6 and IE 7 are vastly different from a user perspective.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[njcoder]

Firefox @ 16%
Firefox @ 18%
Firefox @ 40%

So which one is right? Is anyone really seeing numbers like that? I looked at the stats of two non-computer related sites. One had firefox at about 6-7% per month. The other was up to 44% but that is only because it's new and not getting a lot of traffic. If I subtract my hits from it, FF drops down to around 10%.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[ljgshkg]

Yeah. The real number really doesn't make a different. What's important is that Firefox's share is big enough to drive IE on the road of development and closer itself to support the standards more than before, whcih is definitely a good news for people who need to play with markup and stuff at work.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a fifth of your potential customers cannot use your website... you fix it! Yes, but: If your site is broken for those fifth of your potential customers for long enough, they eventually stop trying and become the 0.01%. It's a vicious cycle.

Re:What's the RIGHT number?

[ladoga]

And then there's XiTi Monitor: http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/browsers-barometer/firefox-march-2008/index-1-2-3-127.html

defaults

[Anonymous Coward]

However, this practice is a break from the traditional practice browsers employed of defaulting this option to off.

Odd. Nearly every browser I've used warns me that it's not the default if I've set something else to be the default. I don't recall going into every single one of those and turning the "check if this browser is the default" option on.

Re:defaults

[Tubal-Cain]

The difference here seems to be making it the default browser during the install rather than bugging you with an extra pop-up at the first run.

So ...

[Aetuneo]

So, basically, when someone goes through the install without paying much attention, Firefox ends up being the default browser. Which will increase the market share by tricking people into setting it as default, and then using it. Which is probably a bit immoral. Thus, at this point, Slashdot's bias towards Mozilla may be measured by how many people find something wrong with this.

Re:So ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me example of a browser which does not do that during the install process?

Re:So ...

[Pecisk]

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.

Re:So ...

[wizardforce]

except that if it bothers enough people, it can be changed. for example, if Debian found this unacceptable, they could make a few code changes for their version of Iceweasel, same with anyone else.

Re:So ...

[MagdJTK]

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.

Re:So ...

[kingjoebob]

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

Re:So ...

[MightyYar]

I don't really see the big deal. Most programs make themselves the "handler" for whatever file type they support by default upon install. Quicktime, MS Media Player, and Real all do this with media files. Every photo viewer I've ever installed does this with image files.

It's especially innocuous here, because if you accidentally make Firefox your default, IE will simply ask you if you would like to make IT the default browser upon the next run (with the default again checked "yes").

Re:So ...

[OzRoy]

I'm not sure that this is a problem. You can safely assume that people wanted to install Firefox, so there is nothing wrong with it making itself default at the same time. If they don't like it they can change it back again.

The difference between this and what Apple did is Apple made it look like it was a required security update and then installed an unwanted piece of software. This however is just a setting change that can be easily reverted. I certainly don't find it a problem when IE makes itself default because I press the wrong button by mistake.

Re:So ...

[Cro Magnon]

Not neccesarily. Maybe they want to check out FF, but they're not ready to make it the default until they've used it enough to be sure it doesn't suck.

Re:So ...

[HyperQuantum]

Immoral? What about tricking people into using a particular webbrowser by including it with your operating system?

Re:So ...

[fprintf]

Then they just need to uncheck the box and make a conscious decision not to install the browswer as the default. Seems like this argument is 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

Re:So ...

[beelsebob]

During the *update* process, I can't think of any other browser that does this.

Re:So ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with NOT having it enabled by default?

If you want to set Firefox as your default browser after installing it, feel free to check the box. If unchecking a box if you do NOT want this to happen is no big deal, why is having to check it if you WANT it a big deal?

It really cuts both ways, so you can't use this to argue for or against this. Therefore, the default applies: settings etc. shouldn't be changed unless the user explicitely requests it.

Re:So ...

[pablomme]

I recently went through the IE 6->7 upgrade (in a virtual machine). IE does it.

Re:So ...

[GuyverDH]

Seems to me that all they are doing is evening the playing field.

Odd that when I installed RC1, and ran it for the first time, all it did was ask if I wanted it to be the default, with the check box filled.... Uncheck it, and done.

This is what IE does every time you start it, until you go in and tell it not to check to see if it's the default.

At least Firefox only asks once.

Re:So ...

[absoluteflatness]

Firefox checks to see if it's the default on every startup as well, unless you specifically uncheck the box and tell it not to.

This behavior's pretty much expected of browsers at this point

Re:So ...

[glwtta]

presumably if you are downloading the browser then you are doing so with the intention of making it your default browser

Or maybe you want to, you know, try it?

Re:So ...

[Sancho]

Well, as noted in the summary, Safari did it during the iTunes update process. Does that count?

Updating Firefox is (or at least used to be) equivalent to downloading the new version and installing over it. Since it would take extra code to check if Firefox is already installed, it seems more forgivable to fail to do that (and thus uncheck the "default" checkbox) than to intentionally try to trick the person.

I also recall a few Internet Explorer updates which set IE as the default browser without even asking. IE 7 may not do this--I don't know.

Re:So ...

[Stooshie]

Anyone who regularly updates firefox will probably have FF as there default anyway.

Re:So ...

[Sancho]

What's wrong with having default as enabled? All applications around the world does it and even hides it in advanced install settings. If all applications installed keystroke loggers and sent your banking information to the authors, would that be ok, too? What if it was in a dialog box with a default checkmark?

My point is not that what Firefox did was wrong, but that the logic you used to come to that conclusion was faulty.

Re:So ...

[Stooshie]

It's not hard to change it back. Just run the browser of choice and it will now show a message saying it's not the default then click OK, make it the default.

Re:So ...

[Sancho]

seeing as I don't download random browsers just for the hell of it. So? Some people do.

I downloaded Safari for the hell of it, once it came out for Windows. I was curious to know how well it worked in the new environment, as well as whether it would work emulated through Wine. I had no intention of using it as my primary browser.

Web developers, if they're good, will test on several browsers beyond their default. These are people who download and install alternate browsers as part of their job.

Re:So ...

[JuanCarlosII]

Yeah Ubuntu, how dare you trick me into using Firefox??!!!111!!!eleventy

Seriously though, every OS is going to come with some web browser or another as the default - Windows use IE, Macs use Safari and [at least the mainstream] Linux distros use FF - you can hardly describe it as immoral.

Re:So ...

[Sancho]

Yeah, no kidding. It pissed me off to no end when Iceweasel was included with Debian.

In all seriousness, the problem was never that Microsoft included a web browser by default. The problem was that they "negotiated" with OEMs (by abusing their monopoly) to keep alternate browsers (Netscape specifically) off of the desktop, or in extreme cases, off of the computers entirely. OEMs didn't dare refuse because if their cost per unit of Windows went up significantly, they'd be unable to compete.

Re:So ...

[TheRaven64]

Most programs make themselves the "handler" for whatever file type they support by default upon install. Quicktime, MS Media Player, and Real all do this with media files. Every photo viewer I've ever installed does this with image files. Which is a huge pain in a lot of cases. I haven't used Windows for a while, but I remember that clicking on a JPEG image was likely to open a completely random program because I had a dozen apps that were all capable of viewing JPEGs (even though only a couple could edit them) and whichever one had been updated most recently claimed the associations. It's fine to add yourself as a possible handler for a particular type of content, but becoming the default is just likely to piss users off.

Re:So ...

[MightyYar]

It's fine to add yourself as a possible handler for a particular type of content, but becoming the default is just likely to piss users off. Right, but the "Windows Way" is to only have one default handler per file extension. Upon install, the program should offer to make itself the default handler of types it can handle. I think that just about every program that I've ever installed checks some of the boxes by default, and I think it's pretty much the de facto standard.

I primarily use Macs, and slightly prefer the Mac way - though I'll be damned if I can tell you how it works or why I prefer it :) In both cases, changing the default isn't very hard - and for things like web browsers and email, both Mac and Windows have a completely separate interface for configuration.

Anyway, about 10-15 years ago I got used to un-checking a bunch of boxes in installers... :)

Re:So ...

[owlstead]

I really hate it when I download a viewer or player and it will default to all file formats, unless it is easy to disable that functionality *and* it is easy to reverse the operation. This allows me to test-drive different players. If this kind of functionality is not included, it won't take the first hurdle and I will tell everyone *not* to use it.

Most people that download firefox will probably want it as their default browser, it is only a single checkbox and easy to reverse. So firefox takes the hurdle with ease.

Slightly OT: The most obnoxious thing I've seen with default browsers is Microsoft/others *knowingly* using the default browser while a site is only created with IE in mind. This is very dirty warfare. Fortunately, they seem to have refrained from using this tactic lately (IE 7 would probably crash on a IE 6 only site anyway :).

Re:So ...

[GuyverDH]

Odd - I don't recall changing any other settings.... Who knows, maybe I did....

Re:So ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quicktime, MS Media Player, and Real all do this with media files. Interestingly, these three examples are also three of the worst pieces of software I have ever had to install.

Re:So ...

[MightyYar]

Two questions for you:
1> What software to you use to play multimedia files and
2> Did it offer to make itself the default?

VLC does, and that's what I use.

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only its memory issues didn't bring surfing to a screeching halt on a regular basis...

A better approval rating, than (cough) some others

[multi-flavor-geek]

I love it! Firefox is my world as proven that I actually own a Firefox Messenger bag (happens to be one of the few bags I could find that actually fit my laptop). I have been running Firefox 3.0 since the Gan Paradiso days and it has been solid as a rock, unlike some other browsers that liked to detonate every couple of minutes. I still am waiting for a fix on the memory leaks, but I can deal with just restarting my browser every time I see it is using three or four hundred meg of memory for now.

ecommerce impact

[davejenkins]

I've seen specific cases where, unfortunately, a programming team ignored the firefox angle when testing their code, and wrote in .NET specific goodies that only worked in IE.

Sure enough, sales dipped almost 20% for a week. We ran the reports, and Firefox was accounting for 21% of site traffic (until that week, where it dropped off to almost nil). We quickly fixed the code, and firefox shot right back up to 21-22%.

The demographics for this website are a little bit younger than the general population, so it made sense that we had already broken through 20%

Re:ecommerce impact

[moore.dustin]

Your story is too convenient to be 100% true.

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 .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.

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.

Re:ecommerce impact

[serviscope_minor]

Well, I'm not the OP, but:

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?

Never underestimate bad development: http://www.thedailywtf.com/.

2) Some .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.

I'd guess all. Not that it needs to be. If the "goody" is something like checking out, then you'd get 0 sales.

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.

Consider sites like tiger direct or new egg. If one wasn't working, or frankly was even a bit slow, I'd go to the other and buy my stuff. You'd see one page hit on the broken one, and loads on the other as I did my searched. I buy new stuff maybe once in every 6 months, but the traffic of these sites is high. If everyone was a lazy, impatient, and not very frequent shopper like myself, a traffic pattern like this would be likely. The people coming in week 2 would not be the same people in the 9broken) week one. Also if there is stiff competition, then website problems just make me go elsewhere.

Re:ecommerce impact

[moore.dustin]

Making quite a few reaches to defend him are we not? A defense like that almost proves that he was fibbing.

Re:ecommerce impact

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If Site A won't sell to me, then I go to Site B. What would motivate a return to Site A? Very little, IMO. But you have inspired a new bookmark folder: Still an Idiot. Every few weeks I can check those sites to reassure me that they are still idiots.

Re:ecommerce impact

[quacking duck]

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? I *wish* this were true. A .NET vendor for my work did just that, and when we asked why Firefox didn't work they said they'd fix the issues for a very tidy sum, or they'd have to re-allocate time/money from more urgent tasks (we're a small org, the vendor was delivering customizations for a huge .NET product, I had no say in our requirements, and my supervisor has an irrational hate on for Firefox). Of course, they're now proceeding further developing against IE only, so it'll be that much more effort if/when there's a push for standards compliance.

The flip side are a few vendors who *didn't* test on IE before delivery, only Firefox. That caused just as many headaches for me, with the secondary effect that it entrenches my supervisor's opinion against Firefox even more.

Re:ecommerce impact

[steelfood]

How does GP's defense of GGGP have any bearing on the issue at hand? I think if you had any reasonable replies to GP's counterarguments, you would've stated them, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on GP and GGGP.

And for the record, there is nothing in GGGP's anecdote that has raised any red flags for me.

Re:ecommerce impact

[Foofoobar]

Believe it or not, living in the Seattle/Redmond area, I have been ordered on occasion to do precisely this and to avoid cross platform design. I would argue how stupid this would be but because so many companies work with or for Microsoft, they have either hired developers from there, have family friends/family members who work there or have someone whispering in there ear and are thus convinced that it is the way to go.

And when things break, they are convinced that you did something wrong and not that they got bad information. So yes, this does happen more frequently than you would imagine.

Re:ecommerce impact

[tobiasly]

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.

Your math is as bad as your English. 20% of his visitors are using Firefox at any given point in time. So if none of them could make a sale, then indeed his sales would drop 20% in one week.

You assume that Firefox users are making a conscious, principled decision to leave the site, but I've been on sites that are so badly broken you can't even submit a form in non-IE browsers because they have some stupid IE-only javascript submit hook. In that case, all Firefox users would be prevented from making any purchases, and the loss in sales would be immediate.

Re:ecommerce impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Younger crowds as in my son and all his friends, and their friends "text message" if browsers aren't working correctly. Keyboard in one hand and the phone in the other.

Myself, if I can't get it to load in FF, then its not worth my time; however, if it does fail in FF, I would resort Konqueror or Epiphany. I will just go to the next site in the Google listings on the search results page. I have done enough tweaking in IE and Windows for a few lifetimes to know that IE is not a browser to rely on. No Lie! I find myself tweaking IE to run on the Internet safely.

FF just works better and the people that knows this don't really go back. I loaded my plug-ins in FF to prevent the crap that IE is affected by. In this case, I have not seen pop-ups other than the ones I need; like SSL or VPN windows I need open to maintain my session.

The folks that use IE mostly in my experience, are those who have no choice as they are being locked-in by other Windows apps, as-in ensuring Office Suites compatibility. These are folks who will not use anything other than Office products and those in the workplace where IE is the norm and FF is not very compatible with Office.

I don't think he is lying all that much at all myself. Have you physically audited that persons network??? Sounds like you actually have "Finished The Internet"; you have "ALL" the answers, huh?

Being a network engineer I can evade the use of IE in the workplace, however, there is only eight of us at any-given-time who can evade the use of IE all-together; amongst the other tweakers who are employed at my place of business.

And the person above who uses IE as opposed to FF, even-though you develop in FF, are a true needed geek in technology. I would say you use IE mainly to surf your own work using a browser that most people use. I think you want to leverage issues and ease the use of your site.

My 2!

Re:ecommerce impact

[Anonymous Coward]

And the moral of the story is: don't use .NET! In most cases a content management platform, such as Drupal, is a far better choice than a generic framework.

installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Animaether]

"the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser"

It's an installation of a browser. Why would you -not-
1. Offer the option to make it the default browser
and
2. Have that option pre-selected.

I would expect a browser to do this. I would expect an image viewer to present me with the option to change image file associations and have those checked by default, a music player to associate MP3s, etc. -On installation-.

I don't want this happening when you simply start the application (I'm looking at you, Outlook).

"unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update"(1) [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.'".
Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default.

No longer labeling it as an 'update' is a good step, but it's not the major gripe with this practice in the first place.

1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari.jpg
2) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari2.jpg

Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[heffrey]

There's actually quite a lot to be said for asking certain questions when an app starts rather than at installation time.

The questions you ask at installation time should be the ones that sysadmins can answer, like where do you want me to put the app and which components do you want to install.

The questions you ask when a user starts the app (for the first time) are questions that the user's answer. An easy way to work out which category a particular choice falls in is whether or not the setting is per user or one setting for the entire machine.

The default browser is a per user setting and the choice should be offered when a user starts the app for the first time.

Presumably what Mozilla have done is to set the default browser for the user performing the installation. This seems somewhat perverse.

Of course Mozilla has little penetration in corporations where these issues are more relevant. And it won't ever get any such penetration until there are good tools for packaging Firefox + add-ons in an MSI. Before anyone flames about MSI being Windows only, corporations overwhelmingly use Windows on the desktop. And even for non-corp users I'll bet Firefox gets more use in Windows than the other OSs combined.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[xtracto]

And it won't ever get any such penetration until there are good tools for packaging Firefox + add-ons in an MSI. Before anyone flames about MSI being Windows only,

It would be enough for me if such kind of thing existed even if it was not a MSI installer. One of the things I hate most is having to hunt for extensions every time I need to install Firefox on a machine.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Alphax.au]

Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default. That would be especially evil; one product should not magically try and install another product which is mostly unrelated (Photoshop installing 3DS Max?)...

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Anonymous Coward]

They may make this change so Firefox prompts you to set it as the default browser, but it's worth pointing out that Microsoft don't even prompt you to set Internet Explorer as your default browser when installing Windows.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Gnavpot]

The default browser is a per user setting

It certainly should be, but are you absolute sure that it is?

In Windows XP, there are several ways of changing the default browser. I have not tested them all thoroughly, but some of them are system wide and only works if I have admin privileges.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[GarfBond]

"unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update"(1) [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.'". Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default. No longer labeling it as an 'update' is a good step, but it's not the major gripe with this practice in the first place. 1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari.jpg 2) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee248/msanto/One-Offs%202008/AppleUpdateSafari2.jpg Please, please, please Mozilla... don't start peddling Thunderbird to Firefox users in the update checks; or if you do, make sure it's -not selected- by default. The second window isn't so bad. Not to mention, comparing the two practices are more and less apples and oranges. What we're really comparing is how the browsers make themselves the default. Safari asks at startup if you would like it to be default, and never a moment sooner, which is exactly the same behavior as Firefox 2.0. Firefox 3 simply changes the behavior to during install, which is probably not a huge deal.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Ed Avis]

This assumes that a Windows machine has a meaningful distinction between per-user and system-wide settings, which is sadly not the case, whatever the original good intentions of the Windows designers.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[lintux]

What confuses me more is that, AFAIK, FireFox and every other browser already asks "would you like me to be your default?" every time you start them. So what's the difference here?

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[BenoitRen]

Don't worry, Mozilla never was big on Thunderbird, and they dropped it months ago. Its development is now the responsibility of the Mozilla Messaging entity.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[S.O.B.]

it's worth pointing out that Microsoft don't even prompt you to set Internet Explorer as your default browser when installing Windows.

I hope you were being sarcastic rather than completely dense but just in case, when you install Windows there is only one browser so by definition it has to be the "default" browser.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[RealGrouchy]

Great, so the Apple update checking thingy now has two sections(2). One for actual updates, and one below that for -completely unrelated applications- to be peddled onto your machine. Still selected by default. And no way to tell it to stop showing up when it checks for updates.

- RG>

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox CCK Wizard.

Based on the same idea of the Client Customization Kit from the Netscape days.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://fxcorp.sanduskycomputers.com used to have some nice tools for repackaging firefox (and add-ons)in order to publish it for a corporate setting. It even allowed one to configure, via GPO, many firefox (and some add-ons) parameters, like home page, proxy configuration, etc. However I've just checked and the site seems to be suspended; due to biling problems, it seems. Sad.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[Anonymous Coward]

"the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser"

It's an installation of a browser. Why would you -not-
1. Offer the option to make it the default browser
and
2. Have that option pre-selected. There is nothing wrong with offering to make it the default browser. There is something wrong with doing it by default. It is just bad behavior, especially for a product like Firefox that has always catered to the user, not the company that makes it.

It is simply rude to alter settings like that without explicit permission. It irritates the pure hell out of me when I install something and it arrogantly sets itself up as default for numerous filetypes and I have to go digging through the options to disable that.

I have four different browsers installed because I wanted to check them all out. When and if I decide to change which of them is the default, I will make that decision.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[illtud]

This assumes that a Windows machine has a meaningful distinction between per-user and system-wide settings, which is sadly not the case, whatever the original good intentions of the Windows designers. This is particularly (and problematically) true for the Default Mail Application in windows. It's set 'per machine' and not per user. So if you've more than one person who logs into the machine (not uncommon in the enterprise) they all get the same default mail application. See MS's KB article here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;315240

Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Xocet_00]

I mean, most people that go out of their way to download a browser installer probably intend to use that browser as their default, whether it's Safari, Opera or Firefox.

Picture this: Joe User downloads and installs Firefox, clicks right through the installer without reading and then starts clicking the little Firefox icon when he wants to surf the net. However, since the 'default' checkbox was blank by default, whenever his friend on MSN sends him a link, he clicks it and it opens in Internet Explorer. In my experience, a very large number of users will not notice that they're not in their usual browser for quite a while. They may navigate away from the linked site and do banking or other security sensitive stuff, but now they're in a browser that hasn't necessarily been keeping up with patches because it's rarely being run.

I don't know, but it seems to be that it's safer to default that box to be checked. Users that keep multiple browsers for testing purposes already know to look for it, will remember to uncheck it, and are in the minority anyway.

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[notseamus]

Except, when Firefox isn't set as your default browser it asks you if you want to set it as default when you start it up, with an option to turn off the prompt too. It's a bit wrong for them to set it as default whether it's the best browser or not.

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[chebucto]

What about users that need firefox for a single application (some ff-only website, say, or an intranet application). They wouldn't necessarily want to change their default browser.

Firefox's old method, of not making itself the default browser on install but asking every time it's run unless told not to, was much better. It didn't trick users (which this new method will), and clearly gave them the choice re: default in a manner that all but the most impatient users would understand.

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Darkness404]

Its just another step removed. For example when you start up Firefox the first time it asks you if you want it to be the default browser so this just simplifies it and asks that during the install rather then the first run.

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than extremic YOU CAN ONLY VIEW THIS RANT AGAINST M$ IN FF websites which most people using IE don't want to read, what sites are ff-ONLY. I know certain websites are IE only (inActiveX, stupid programmers, etc.), but I've never seen any other than the case above where it's strictly Firefox ONLY

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I notice rather quickly when I open IE instead of Mozilla... Maybe its just me...

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Homer1946]

I keep several browsers on my computer that I keep updated. I am sure at some point I will forget to uncheck the box for Firefox and be briefly irritated. However what really bothers me about this is Mozilla calling Apple on using a similar (but more severe) tactic of increasing market share by displaying and preselecting options that are to their advantage, but then a few months later employ a similar strategy. It reeks of politics where you cry foul when you your opponents employ strategies which everyone knows you would employ if you could.

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Xtifr]

What about users that need firefox for a single application Oh yeah, that's gotta be at least, what, 0.1% of the Firefox users at most? Yeah, that's absolutely the target audience that should drive all other users' experiences.

Firefox's old method, of not making itself the default browser on install but asking every time it's run unless told not to, was much better. Well, yeah, except for the other 99.9%+ of the users where the new behavior is a big win. :)

Re:Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, most people that go out of their way to download a browser installer probably intend to use that browser as their default, whether it's Safari, Opera or Firefox. That is a large and probably incorrect assumption. Most people likely download a new browser to try it out and see how they like it. To find that it has changed a default setting will leave most people feeling irritated. That is not the way to convince a potential new user that your product is superior.

I downloaded and installed Safari yesterday because I only just realized that it was available on Windows and wanted to take a look. If the next link I clicked in IRC or elsewhere had opened in Safari instead of Firefox, I would be pretty pissed off at my settings having been hijacked.

I find it hard to believe Mozilla did something like this. However, since it *is* Mozilla, I'm sure this pre-selected option will be nice and obvious, so hopefully it won't take anyone by surprise. Still, it would be better if they had left that up to the user.

Well, isn't that ironic?

[wattrlz]

Why is it that web designers and developers - and I'm guilty of this too - almost always knowingly use a browser that most of their users won't? I guess it's not so much of a problem anymore, but back in the day developing in Firefox, Opera, or any browser that wasn't IE was a sure way to run into interesting and convoluted issues when your users views your page in IE and it renders all differently.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Warll]

It's because of IE that most web devs use Firefox. I mean how can one wilingfuly swear and condem IE to the depths of hell while still using it as your primary browser?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that web designers and developers - and I'm guilty of this too - almost always knowingly use a browser that most of their users won't? Who cares? As long as you test your work in the other browsers all's well.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Rydian]

Any web designer or developer worth the paper their paychecks are written on should be testing their sites against all of the major browsers anyways.

Doing so makes whatever browser you're using for your normal browsing irrelevant.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[moderatorrater]

Because IE's a bitch to develop with. On a javascript error, it tells you the correct line number but it can't tell you which file it's in. It doesn't allow anywhere near the quality of plugins that firefox does, so it doesn't get firebug, greasemonkey, etc. Finally, IE doesn't comply with the standards very well, so it's a lot harder to get the site looking how you want it to. With firefox, when you make a change you can know fairly well what that change is going to do. When you're developing a site and making a lot of changes and tweaks, it's important to have a browser that you can work with. Converting the final product to something IE can render is a lot easier to working with IE the entire way.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Jellybob]

It takes a fraction of the time needed to make a site that was built in Firefox to work in IE compared to making a site built in IE work with any real web browser.

In most cases I can build the site using Firefox, knowing that'll it'll be 99% the same in Safari, Opera, and whatever other browsers you can think of. Then I just need an IE specific stylesheet (that'll be full of nasty hacks) to make everything look right in IE as well.

And that's not taking into account the extensions that make life so much more pleasant. Firebug alone must have saved me several days of tracing bugs this year.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[D'Sphitz]

Firebug.

Also, it's much easier to develop for firefox and then tweak for IE than vice versa.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Tubal-Cain]

The same way many people can bash windows and continue to use it.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Touvan]

Firefox has Firebug. It's easier to develop in Firefox than anything else because of that one extension.

Also, if it works in Firefox, it generally works in Safari and Opera, with minor changes.

Also, it's easier to add the hacks into a page for IE that displays according to the standards, than it is to make changes to a page developed for IE, to work in all the various other browsers (quirks modes vary more widely across the browser spectrum than standards mode does, and generally, pages built in IE are built in quirks mode, since IE page devs don't tend to care about standards).

Also, there are a lot of articles online about how to make IE behave in more standards compliant ways, and almost no articles about how to make all of the other browsers behave like IE (since it's largely impossible to get them all to behave the same way when you go at it from that direction).

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[lattyware]

Because Firefox renders our code correctly. IE doesn't. Design for Firefox, you design to standards, design for IE, you design for IE.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[naasking]

Which is perfectly reasonable when there isn't a viable, (read: largely compatible) alternative.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

IMHO Web Dev Toolbar and Firebug are the two biggest reasons for Firefox's adoption. Being able to poke about in the DOM and inspect individual elements, and to put breakpoints into JavaScript, are HUGE wins for developers. Even if your final site will never be looked at by any browser except IE, it's still faster to make it work in FF and then tweak it as necessary.

To do decent debugging in IE, you have to install Visual Studio... ick.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Lumpy]

Because web designers and developers are inherently lazy. you DO NOT DESIGN your pages for a SPECIFIC BROWSER. you design them to the standard and DO NOT USE functions that break the site across browsers.

It's easy to do if you start off doing it right away when you start the design. Only very recently did I start using png files in websites based on the browser stats from my servers.

IE6 is horribly broken and kept me from using png files. now that IE6 has dropped below FF on my server stats I now use PNG files because the top 75% of my visitors use a browser that actually displays them right.

Just like how I still avoid majorly nested DIV tags because IE7 has some problems with advanced stuff when opera and FF did not. so I simply drop back to a table in those divs and it fixes the issue.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[mgblst]

And IE comes with the Operating System, so most people don't know any better.

So the two reasons, Firefox is better, but users don't know. Those two things combined keep Microsoft in business.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Stooshie]

Why is it that web designers and developers ... ... use a browser that most of their users won't?

Because there are many many plugins to assist with debugging JavaScript, XHTML compliance, AJaX, Accessibility Issues and many other problems that occour.

Anyway, you should be writing to standards, not browsers. Write to the standards first (FF much more compliant) then test in other less compliant browsers.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[howdoesth]

Firefox has a ton of useful plugins and utilities for web development. Trying to make anything more complicated than a trivial static page without firebug is something I never want to go back to.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[drodal]

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.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Don't you mean a largely more entrenched alternative?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[bsDaemon]

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.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[rubberglove]

I haven't actually tried this yet, but I got all excited when I saw it: firebug lite

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Pugwash69]

I use Firefox because it's usually a better indicator of errors in the HTML, especially with a w3c validator add on enabled. At least any sites I built to work in Firefox and IE6 didn't break when IE7 came out.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[boxxertrumps]

The same way many people can break windows and continue to use them.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Kjella]

No normal web developer (no, I don't care about your hobbyist site happy to not cater to 75%+ of the world) can do without making it render right in IE. Last I tried (which was for IE6) I could build a site that'd validate and three different renderers in Firefox, Opera and Safari would almost always agree. When you've gor that kind of consensus, you can be pretty sure this behaviour is well documented and at least somewhat logical.

Trying to predict a poorly implemented black box piece of code is nothing but an exercise in frustration. Trying to predict how things would render was pretty hopeless, you changed some offsets, saved and hit reload again and again. Perhaps I could have built something faster from scratch that way, but I doubt it. The right way was to use the other browsers until it worked there, which hopefully the IE developers got some parts right even if masked by bits they got wrong and tweak the code (conditional comments for IE) until it looked ok. Otherwise you'd just be trying to reverse engineer the whole IE renderig engine, not just the squirrly bits.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[owlstead]

"Why is it that web designers and developers - and I'm guilty of this too - almost always knowingly use a browser that most of their users won't?"

Because it is (more) standards compliant. Because it is easier to code for. Because their are more tools available for it. Because you can have different versions of it on a system.  Because they don't confuse the certificate store of the browser with that of the system. Because the other browser is simply more usable. Because they don't want to see all those adds. Because they want to have IE6 installed (as most of their unknowing users do) but want to browse without getting a trojan. Need more?

Note that this is for personal and professional browsing of internet standards and the like. It's not said that they don't test their pages using IE. You can be pretty sure that they do, I hardly ever see a page that renders badly on IE, even though their compliance to web standards sucks (or sucked) badly.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Snover]

The issue you describe in IE has probably nothing to do with the nesting and everything to do with hasLayout. Also, if you've got more than 2 or 3 <div> inside each-other, you should re-evaluate what you're doing and probably use a more appropriate element (ul, ol, dl, p, h1-h6, etc).

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[CastrTroy]

I have Visual Studio 2008 installed, because I'm a .Net developer. Still nothing beats firefox + web developer + firebug/venkman. It's much easier to just do all the development in Firefox, and then tweak for IE. Once you get used to the quirks of IE, you usually don't even have to do a lot of tweaking.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[AI0867]

Whereas firefox is even compatible with IE's bugs. (

overflows and more)

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Thyamine]

How does that make it irrelevant? I use a web browser outside of work related tasks all the time. Why would I not use the browser I preferred most? Certainly for testing a site, I'd expect to check using several browsers, but I don't see a need to visit /. using IE, then Firefox, then maybe Opera or Safari, and then back to IE.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[zenslug]

Firebug lite is just too light. If you are in a desperate pinch, maybe, but for regular dev it's a lot easier to just do everything in FF with Firebug and then tweak for IE.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Blakey Rat]

Because IE's a bitch to develop with. On a javascript error, it tells you the correct line number but it can't tell you which file it's in.

It can if you break into the debugger.

It doesn't allow anywhere near the quality of plugins that firefox does, so it doesn't get firebug,

Yeah, but to be fair, Firebug cribs a lot from IE's DOM Explorer. True, the implementation is better.

Finally, IE doesn't comply with the standards very well, so it's a lot harder to get the site looking how you want it to.

I've yet to head a compelling reason for me to worry about web standards as opposed to simply making my site look good in all the major browsers.

Converting the final product to something IE can render is a lot easier to working with IE the entire way.

Doesn't that imply that the standards support isn't nearly as bad as everyone says?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firebug baby! Oh, and AdBlock+

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Blakey Rat]

It also makes the whole argument about which browser has "more" standards support irrelevant.

The web developer has to test all browsers anyway, and users don't give a flying crap. Sure, web development is tough-- so is application development. So's building a skyscraper, or designing a new model of car. But you're developers; cope! (And yes, there are crappy developers who won't use standards regardless of how many browsers support them.)

Whenever a browser adds more standards support, all they're really doing is making the web developer's job easier at the expense of adding features actual users can use for a better browsing experience.

I think the whole thing is a false economy, frankly.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[ady1]

So what you are saying is that linux is not like windows but is like unix? and yet in your last line, you say that its a ripoff of windows?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that web designers and developers - and I'm guilty of this too - almost always knowingly use a browser that most of their users won't?

These days? Probably Firebug.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Rydian]

Which browser you use for normal browsing should be irrelevant in regards to site development, as you should be testing across all major browsers.

Surf the web with whatever browser you prefer. To the end-user, everything should come out as the developers expected across the major browsers. I know you're likely not going to visit /. on all the major browsers, but I sure hope the /. devs do.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Ksevio]

I know that I stopped using after I began testing with other browsers and found out how much better they were

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[bsDaemon]

I'm saying that a lot of people -- especially these days -- to whom Linux was billed as an "alternative" to Windows expect it to look like Windows, work like Windows, and do the same sort of things Windows does.

Let us ignore commodity hardware for a second and think back a few years.

One would not buy a "PC" to run scientific applications or do any serious 3D modeling -- that is what Sun and SGI were for. Likewise, while one COULD generate documents on a an O2, just using Office or WordPerfect on a "PC" is a lot easier.

f/oss operating systems, but running on commodity hardware confuse the issue for people who have for so long connected "PC" with DOS/Windows. A lot of people in their 40s/50s still call it "IBM," even if its a Dell.

Then along come people, most of whom have a political agenda or just hate Microsoft, and try and "convert" people to Linux. "Its like Windows, only better," they say -- just like how people will describe GIMP as "like photoshop, only better" or "free photoshop."

Then the 'convert' comes with their preconceived notions of what the system is supposed to do -- and they EXPECT it to be "like Windows" or "free photoshop."

Then those people bitch and complain because they feel let down.

Linux is fine, if its not trying to be Windows. GIMP is fine, if its not trying to be Photoshop.

But then those same people with the political agenda, but this time just the ones with coding skills, they come out and try and make the system MORE like Windows, MORE like Photoshop, etc.

So, in the process of trying to cater to people who switched from Windows because they hated it, they make the system more like Windows -- and start to whittle away the stuff that made the system different and good in the first place, at least from a technological standpoint.

However, I suppose it makes sense to them that a half-assed rip-off of windows that is at least "free" is somehow better than "the real thing." It just confuses the issue and really to no avail.

This is why I use BSD -- because I don't really give a crap about "free software," converting people, etc. I care that the system works and does what I want, and if I don't have code for nvidia drivers, then tough noogies. When I was in high school I used to shell out for XiG Accelerated X server instead of using XFree86, too. If I had been able to afford BSD/OS back then, I would have bought it, too.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[OzBeserk]

One word: Firebug. It's by far the most powerful tool I know for untangling the front end HTML generated from JSF etc and helping work out which actual CSS styles are being picked up by HTML elements.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[dcam]

Frankly if you aren't using firefox and you are a web developer, there is something wrong. There are so many extensions in firefox that make web development massively easier. Things like Web Developer, console2, livehttpheaders, that extension that lets you add custom headers (name escapes me). Firefox is better for testing js, most of the time if things work in firefox they work in other browsers (with some known exceptions).

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[shermo]

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. No, no, no. At least, not in my case. I switched to linux to avoid windowisms. In fact, while I was using my windows partition shortly after installing ubuntu I recieved a "windows update, stop what you're doing and restart your computer message, you can click later, but I'll keep popping up every 5 minutes ad infinitum" message, and I rejoiced. I've always thought that open source software suffers by cloning commercially available software. The incentive to use linux/openoffice etc shouldn't be that it's cheaper, it should be because it's better.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[zobier]

IMHO Web Dev Toolbar and Firebug are the two biggest reasons for Firefox's adoption. You use both? I ask because I completely dropped WDT when I discovered FB (chuck in Firecookie and Tamper Data for good measure). Is there something I'm missing?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[zobier]

That's v.funny, but whitespace problems in JavaScript, seriously!?

I've written a lot of JavaScript and never been bitten by that one.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[wattrlz]

I care, 'cause most devs I know get lazy about that sort of thing and check-your-work-in-browsers-you-don't-normally-use-day ends of becoming an entertaining office event.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

I 100% agree, my productivity skyrocketed the day I found Firebug and Firefox.

Now if firebug had an FTP connection back to your site, a "New project" button and fixed that bloody Enter/Tab bug the combination of Firefox and Firebug would render any other editor obsolete.

Any one want to get coding?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[treeves]

This is not a troll. Hope it gets metamoderated...

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Blakey Rat]

Heh, thanks. I get marked as troll all the time for posts like that.

I seriously and honestly would like someone to explain to me why web standards are such a big deal. I'd much rather Mozilla (or Microsoft, or Apple, or anybody who makes browsers) work on features that actually improve the user experience then work on implementing web standards that are likely to bloat rendering code and break old websites.

Time to Celerate!

[AioKits]

Be sure to pick up something from the Mozilla Store!

http://store.mozilla.org/

I got me one of these: http://store.mozilla.org/product.php?code=MZ34014&catid=10

Wish I got paid for product placement in my comments...

Re:Time to Celerate!

[BertieBaggio]

Be sure to pick up something from the Mozilla Store! http://store.mozilla.org/

I would buy (my gf wants a plushie), but they don't ship to the UK :(

They're missing an opportunity - I imagine other folk would buy too.

LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox sucks as a browser. As a guide-on it's great for nerds because otherwise you'd all be using lynx.

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[Stooshie]

Firefox sucks as a browser.

public static function firefoxSux():boolean
{
return false;
}

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[Anonymous Coward]

public static function ieSucks() {
        $browser = get_browser();
        $name = $browser['browser'];
        $version = $browser['version'];

        if ($name == "MSIE") {
                switch ($version) {
                        default:
                                $stillsucks = true;
                        break;
        }

        return $stillsucks;
}

while (ieSucks()) {
        switchTo('Firefox');
}

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[Dallas Caley]

I totally agree

Internet Explorer is simply the best tool ever (for downloading Firefox) i wouldn't even think of using anything else

Wait... what was the question?

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[CastrTroy]

Personally I prefer using command line FTP to download Firefox on windows machines. That way I never have to use Internet Explorer. On Linux I just urpmi (or whatever your distro uses) to get firefox.

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[drodal]

I totally agree

Internet Explorer is simply the best tool ever (for downloading Firefox) i wouldn't even think of using anything else

except maybe an older version of firefox.... which makes IE pointless.........

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[hairyfeet]

Actually IMHO I think Firefox is a MUCH better tool for downloading Firefox than IE. Then once Firefox is done installing I just switch over to...Firefox.

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[mpeskett]

But how do you download the portable version without using a browser?

I guess you could just keep it on a thumb drive...

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[hairyfeet]

I learned a long time ago it is wise to keep a basic suite of tools on a thumb drive,because I never know when I'm asked to look at a pc what I'm going to find. I have also found it great for class and visits to friends as I can keep my bookmarks as well as have all the tools I need for repairs and the occasional office work. I don't know how it is there,but here I see WAY too many computers with free versions of MS Works(shudder).

By having both OO.o and Firefox on a stick I can show customers without installing anything to their computers how nice the free tools are and if they like them(which they usually do) I can whip out my "handy dandy freebie cd" and install OO.o,Inkscape,Gimp,etc while I use Firefox on my flash to grab the latest Firefox. I have found my "all the basics" pack is the most popular-OO.o,Firefox or Seamonkey with Adblock and Noscript(depending on whether they still download mail or not),Gimp and Klite codec pack. I have found this setup gives my customers a good 85-90% of what they need for everything they want their PC to do. I can't wait until both Firefox and OO.o hit V.3.0 as I've found the new layout to both(as well as better memory management) are really nice and will make a welcome addition to my "Handy dandy freebie cd". But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[shadowbearer]

USB sticks sure beat rewriting tool CDs every time one updates! :)

  I have a 4GB Kingston stick with all the sorts of things you have on it in addition to other stuff and lots of freeware portable apps including clamav which has come in very very handy; plus another 4GB with portable Bart PE loaded with antimalware kit on the first partition, and Ubuntu on a second partition; and a bunch of other ones including a 128MB with DSL that I carry everywhere.

  Once the 16GB sticks come down in price a little more I'll build one with several bootable images on it.

  Sweet kit, fits in the wallet. I love those things. Not too many years ago being able to put that kind of software power on a set of CDs was sweet kit... ;)

  Haven't had a single one break yet, either; a couple of them have been thru the laundry. The 128MB DSL stick case is actually slightly melted, as I left it on a dashboard of a car one 100F day. It still works... :)

  Cheers,
  SB

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[hairyfeet]

While for the most part I agree, and I have taken to carrying a 40Gb ultra mini drive that has all the latest and greatest as well as all my software tools(AV,rootkit revealer,spybot,etc) I have found my "handy dandy" cds are a nice way I can add value to my customers while exposing them to free and open source software. I have all the software divided into categories such as virus and spyware removal,Internet,graphics and photo editing,office,etc along with a text file to go along with each piece of software describing what it is/does. This way not only do they have more software to try than they could afford to pay me to install,but they can easily share with their friends/family. And I have found more and more customers coming to me in part because "you're the guy that makes those cool handy dandy cds" which they got from a friend/family member who recommended me. Who says you can't make money from free software? ;-) But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[Stooshie]

Funny! And your method would have to be part of a singleton class too! :-)

fro5t pist

[Anonymous Coward]

antibacterial soap. Usenet. In 1995, Won't be standying balance is st8uck, Niggers everywhere I'll have offended

Same as "Do you want Firefox the default broswer?"

[martinw89]

Why is this any worse than Firefox pestering you to become the default browser? The users who are going to miss that check box also don't know what to do when Firefox pesters to become default. I think neither is a moral tactic. But, IE does this also (I'm not sure about Safari). If there's a huge community outrage, maybe there will be a bugzilla report and they'll fix it in 6-8 years.

20% market share?

[Fri13]

Mozilla Firefox already has much bigger market share on many countries. Ex. on Finland is over 40% and most ITC sites report Mozilla is over 50% market share owning browser. Many other EU country has over 30-40% market share and looks like only few big country has lower than those and where IE still dominates.

Re:20% market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

only few big country has lower than those and where [.ie] still dominates

Help! Help! They're after me lucky charms...

*ducks*

Re:20% market share?

[rubah]

At the school I'm going to in France (part of the universite franche comte), they have ms products and their open source counterparts both installed on the school computers. Word and OO.O, IE (of course), and firefox. The only thing I haven't spotted yet is linux xD

My school in the US is headed that way; they have firefox installed on all the computers, but they haven't installed an ms word alternative yet.

at my old high school, I had to use portable firefox, and I doubt that's changed :p

What's Firefox?

[HyperQuantum]

Oh wait... It's that thing I use to browse webpages. Never mind.

Some people just 'go on the internet' without knowing what they're using.

Re:What's Firefox?

[Tubal-Cain]

Since they don't care and you do, install Firefox and change the icon to look like IE's and maybe and an IE skin. (Get permission of course, maybe explain it as a security upgrade)

Re:What's Firefox?

[SkunkPussy]

thats what I did to my parents :) they didn't notice the difference

Re:What's Firefox?

[Kimos]

I'm planning on doing the same thing with Linux. Put the same desktop background, same launchers on the desktop, import documents and bookmarks. Wonder how long it'd take her to notice...

Re:What's Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell them "Microsoft updated the internet."

Default for How Long?

[mpapet]

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....

Re:Default for How Long?

[moreati]

No, I've seen Internet Explorer be restored as default and the quick launch icon reappear following Windows Update sessions on Windows XP.

Re:Default for How Long?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know for browsers since we only use a direct shortcut to Firefox but the default mail client has been silently changed to Outlook from Thunderbird a few times in the past. It's a PITA since all our mail goes through Thunderbird and we have an MS Access application that sends e-mail daily using the default mail application. The result is that sometimes after a Windows update the application pukes an error into the user's face and forces him to manually change the default e-mail application to Thunderbird again. Well, I guess it's just one chapter in the Windows PITA book.

We use only Thunderbird and Firefox in our business.

Re:Default for How Long?

[ArAgost]

That's what happens when you have a completely cray system to associate protocols and file types with apps like that of Windows.

not really

[ILuvRamen]

Not on my web server it's not! And I even get a ton of foreign and 21 year old and under traffic, which is the likely Firefox user and I'm at like 12% Firefox. The rest of my stats are perfectly in line with average for OS and stuff so I know it's a good sampling. If they're calculating this using some really dumb method like downloads of the Firefox installer then obviously their logic is flawed.

Re:not really

[NevarMore]

ZOMG your site must be the awesomest site ever if you know what the whole internet thinks!

Percentage is meaningless

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Re:Percentage is meaningless

[mgblst]

Make sure you keep it a secret, and don't mention that country. Nobody is interested in that sort of information.

Re:Percentage is meaningless

[A beautiful mind]

You're right.

Re:Percentage is meaningless

[canuck57]

Make sure you keep it a secret, and don't mention that country. Nobody is interested in that sort of information.

Let me fix this for you.

Make sure you keep it a secret, and don't mention that country. Microsoft supporters are not interested in that sort of information.

Re:Percentage is meaningless

[xant]

Percents don't matter as much at that point, but they matter. The market can just as easily turn back to IE at some point.. if, say, Windows 7 is amazing and IE 8 blows the doors off of Firefox. Then that market share reallly matters, because Firefox will be struggling to hold on to their position rather than growing.

And let's face it, the army fighting the good standards fight is mostly made of orange foxes. Take Firefox out, and the begrudging standards compliance we've won from Microsoft will go away too.

Re:Percentage is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to inform all of you (mostly Americans); In Sweden, we haven't used IE for about 20 years. Well, surely some people do, but it's extremely rare, and no one considers it safe. We've used Firefox or Opera since it's either simpler, or more secure.

Me, and most people I know, have almost never used IE, and we don't understand why people around the world ever use it, at all.

This issue is very local and applies only to countries still using IE. Perhaps the issue isn't really about if IE is secure, but more general; why use it at all? It is stone age, insecure, crap quality, slow, consumes your computer, etc. Much like floppy disks. I don't think I know any swedish person who have ever used a floppy disk in his/her whole life, and that includes parents and grand parents.

So what's wrong? IE being insecure? No, keeping bad and obsolete depricated technology. IE, floppy disks, dialup internet, timber furniture, fax machines, etc...
Come on, the entire world is laughing at you. I'm not trying to troll, but rather to enlight. We do laugh; "Well, you know Yanks" and so on. Please give us a reason to stop that.

Seamonkey?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if seamonkey users are included in the firefox numbers (anyone know if the browser-ID strings are the same?)

I ask this as a partisan of the seamonkey camp.

Here's our new chant:

Respect user choice
Remove useless bloat
FF and IE
Both get my goat!

Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[Viol8]

I'm really getting tired of firefox crapping out on me (usually because of flash it has to be said) and because its running one big multi threaded app no matter how many windows you open or seperate instances you attempt to start, the whole lot disappear taking all my sessions with them. The current multi process option doesn't work. Have they added one yet that does because it really needs it if they can't sort out the reliability?

Presumably they make it multi threaded so it fits into Windows limited process model but surely a multi process version can't be hard to achieve!

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[SkunkPussy]

I'm also annoyed by firefox locking up because a page that looks up information via js times out reading an xml file in or whatever.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[AnyoneEB]

I believe the problem with that is that every window needs access to the same cookies, etc. in case you have two windows accessing the same website. There are probably other difficulties as well.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[Miladinoski]

Why don't you just try another browser? Perhaps Opera, Konqueror or Epiphany will fit you better than Firefox.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[owlstead]

It's more tiresome that there is only a single thread updating the GUI & renderer. This is hell when e.g. Adobe installs itself as a plugin, especially since it halts it's own GUI process each and every time it has to do something.

Plugins should really run in different threads independent on the GUI thread doing the updating (different processes would make communication more difficult, but might be a good second choice), since the plugins would not be able to bring the browser down to its knees.

Each page and mayor subitem should really have its own rendering thread, then these stupid freezes would come to an end. They could just give their results to the main thread doing the (user visible) updating.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[Viol8]

Also if a DNS look up blocks every browser instance hangs.

I realise Firefox is free and a lot of people have put a lot of hard work in , but really , its just not good enough to be a viable 21st century browser. Its like using IE3 all over again.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[Viol8]

I have Opera at home but at work we have to use firefox on linux or firefox/IE on windows.

Re:Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[enoz]

The DNS lock-up issue has been around for a long long time now. The issue is most noticable when you use a PAC file for proxy configuration (as is necessary where I work).

Firefox 3rc1 appears to have somehow made this problem even worse, now clicking on any link whose domain hasn't previously been cached by local DNS will hang the entire application for a matter of seconds.

For reference here is a BugZilla reference, note that issue is now 4 years old.

OT Mod comment

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That comment isn't informative, its inquisitive, which should be a mod option.

Re:OT Mod comment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. I hope they put that mod in when the add the Pedant mod.

Re:OT Mod comment

[Tranzistors]

If the question is good and is worth other people attention, it should be modded "interesting".

Re:OT Mod comment

[somersault]

That should be around the time that they add the boldly sarcastic mod.

Re:OT Mod comment

[timeOday]

Well, to finish my point, I'm sure the default browser option comes into play occasionally, I just question how much that alone accounts for firefox reaching 20% adoption. I have to think most of it is that people are accepting firefox.

Re:OT Mod comment

[npsimons]

That should be around the time that they add the boldly sarcastic mod.

Oh, now there's a REAL useful mod.

Re:OT Mod comment

[tjwhaynes]

Yeah - that'll happen around the same time they add the "Grammar Nazi" mod. You should have used "REALLY" you insensitive clod!

Re:OT Mod comment

[somersault]

Oh great, now we need a "Poor Simpson's Trivia Knowledge" mod! The "Over-rated"s, they do nothing!

Not even worth mentioning at all

[Kenoli]

Oh, my. The default browser check box is checked by default!
This is so not meaningful or interesting. What could possibly be less significant?

Re:A better approval rating, than (cough) some oth

[maxume]

It doesn't sound like you have used IE7 enough to have an opinion.

I use firefox and all, but why spout off?

Maybe

[assertation]

Maybe with 20% market share I will start meeting web site designers who know that Microsoft is not "the internet", that there are other browsers and that the W3 sets the standards.

Re:Maybe

[Alwin Henseler]

Maybe with 20% market share I will start meeting web site designers who know that Microsoft is not "the internet", that there are other browsers and that the W3 sets the standards. Web site designers will know this already, unless they're even more stupid than some of their users. But this isn't even relevant. What is relevant, is that there's a significant percentage that uses something other than what's most popular (and that this percentage consists of several 'others').

If you're a company and ignore a significant percentage of potential customers, that will cost you. Few companies can afford to lose out on those customers, when the competition is happy to serve them. Darwinian selection will do the rest, and (after time) leave only companies where you can use any reasonable popular browser to do business with. Ofcourse for government institutions, or companies in some sort of monopoly position (like the only provider of goods/services in a specific market) these rules may work different, but that's the general idea.

Firefox 3.0 RC1 is infested with bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 3.0 is much more slower than 2.0 branch and there are tons of CSS bugs waiting to be fixed. It is not going to be visible to avarage users but for toolkit developers the performance hit will be significant. The so called new layout engine tagged Gecko 1.9 just slowed down the browser. Webkit on the other hand renders at least 2x faster than IE and Firefox.(note that I prefer IE on windows). My next browser of choice will definetely the Safari/Webkit for windows, not Firefox not anymore.

Re:Firefox 3.0 RC1 is infested with bugs

[msuarezalvarez]

So it'll be 20% - 1? I can already hear the desperate cries from the developers!

Re:Firefox 3.0 RC1 is infested with bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking post twice before replying with nonsense. On the other hand, I bet you would certainly cry like a bitch though.

The most successful FOSS product?

[assertation]

Would having 20% of the share of the browser market make Firefox the most successful *end user* FOSS?

If so, I think it provides a loud message to old school free(dom) software developers who see crappy interfaces as only a small inconvenience that users SHOULD suck up and stop "whining" about.

IMHO one of the reasons for the success of Firefox among Jane User is the easy of use and simple interface.

Re:The most successful FOSS product?

[lattyware]

End user, yes, otherwise I presume Apache is what we are all thinking of.

"According to NetApplications" -- bah!

[schmiddy]

I have long distrusted these shady stats companies that provide these figures with absolutely no way to check their validity. I poked around a bit on netapplications.com, and although they don't actually tell you outright, I gather that their Firefox statistics come from corporate websites that they host(?). Needless to say, there might be a huge bias here (e.g. the types of companies in bed with NetApplications might be biased towards having a large influx of corporate users on IE, or something like that).

So what to do about this lack of statistics? A couple months ago I wrote a bot that crawled webalizer statistics pages, harvested the results, loaded them into MySQL, and produced aggregate browser statistics by month. To make a long story short, I had difficulty getting enough Webalizer pages to make for a really good study (my bot was just scraping Google), but I showed around ~20% Firefox usage. Results here. If there's interest in this project, it could easily be revived.

Re:"According to NetApplications" -- bah!

[klubar]

Of course you're only reporting on sites that use Webalizer & don't keep them private. You're probably missing a huge number of corporate sites (that use proprietary/different) web stat reporting and sites that have enough sense not to post their web stats.

Re:"According to NetApplications" -- bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you're only reporting on sites that use Webalizer & don't keep them private. You're probably missing a huge number of corporate sites (that use proprietary/different) web stat reporting and sites that have enough sense not to post their web stats. If you actually read his link, he notes the bias. But its a different take on how things look, no?

Re:"According to NetApplications" -- bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have access to the metrics for a very large site (approx 70M hits per day, before filtering out bots and other crap). My numbers are pretty close to yours, though more like 18% for FF.

That would be an odd setup

[GameboyRMH]

If you're switching away from IE, you might as well switch away from its annoying pet chihuahua WL Messenger. There are SO many alternatives out there...GAIM, Miranda, Pidgin, and Trillian (free edition) come to mind...

Re:That would be an odd setup

[pablomme]

If you're switching away from IE, you might as well switch away from its annoying pet chihuahua WL Messenger. I have, I don't have Windows these days. But that comes at the cost of dropping video and/or audio and/or file transfers, which is kind of a pity.

GAIM, Miranda, Pidgin, and Trillian (free edition) come to mind... Gaim and Pidgin (and now Carrier) are the same thing. I personally like aMSN, and sometimes Mercury Messenger. These are MSN-only, though.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Miladinoski]

I think emesene is worth mentioning too. It has all the best features of WLM, minus the ads, though you can't yet send or receive audio and video which will be introduced in the next releases.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Inner_Child]

You could also check out Emesene. It's fairly new to the scene, but looks promising.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Anonymous Coward]

Know of any with good video chat support?

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Joe Jay Bee]

AMSN is quite good, and is available for Windows, Mac and Linux. Considering what a piece of shit MS Messenger for Mac is, it's a breath of fresh air. Only downside is it looks quite clunky and doesn't really fit in with most any desktop environment.

See here.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, WL Messenger, for all its faults, advertisements, klunkiness and insecurity, has just got the best multimedia support of any IM client I've yet found for Windows.

I'd love to be corrected on this by somebody who knows of a program which can stream good quality webcam feeds with built-in push-to-talk voice chat and shared folders which integrate with the system's virus protection plugins OTHER than WL Messenger.

Oh yeah, and it should operate in Windows and be configurable to not seize control of window focus.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Anonymous Coward]

None of which are compatible with WLMs VOIP and webcam features.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Anonymous Coward]

Voice chat is a problem.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Anonymous Coward]

There are SO many alternatives out there...GAIM, Miranda, Pidgin, and Trillian (free edition) come to mind... Not to split hairs, but GAIM is Pidgin (they were forced to change their name). It's a great chat program, though ...

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Almahtar]

Kopete (KDE's counterpart to gaim/pidgin) handles webcams quite nicely. Not sure about file transfers, haven't tried them much.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[scipiodog]

I've actually been using digbsy for about the last month. While it's only a windows app at the moment, a linux version is in development.

It's been excellent, and integrates facebook chat as well, which I haven't seen any other chat applications do as yet. I recommend it.

MS given up?

[Stooshie]

I think part of the reason is that MS seem to have given up their fight, a little, to become the browser of choice. They seem to be spending less time trying to create their own DOM structures etc.

They are probably concentrating on developing new products and getting Windows V#@$a working rather than spending lots of developers time getting the minutiae of browser compliance working.

Re:MS given up?

[Shados]

Indeed, they are giving up. It makes sense too: The main reason to continue developing IE is for backward compatibility (the rendering engine alone is used in more software than most people here probably realise...) and for PR purposes, as well as to keep MS independant from third parties for internal purpose (be it for the better or the worse).

The browser market monopoly is already lost: making a IE-only public web site is now corporate suicide. Trying to keep a monopoly on the browser software itself then has very very little gain, but has a very heavy cost: the anti-trust lawsuits.

Any monopoly that doesn't bring in MAJOR dough, directly or indirectly (Windows, Office, etc) must be dropped at all cost, as the less they have, the easier it is to make inspectors eat up the important ones.

In other words, by now, if Microsoft could lose IE without losing their face, they probably would. Its in their best interest.

Slashdot browser usage distribution??

[BlackCreek]

Yo,Taco!

Where, and when are we getting to see the browser usage distribution of Slashdot?

I bet you could have one of those stories with more than 1000 posts by publishing it in the "Taco Blog", and linking to it.

It would probably be very interesting to see how (if?) the distribution varies depending on section (games, linux, mac etc).

Re:Slashdot browser usage distribution??

[El_Oscuro]

My own wild-ass-guess:

Linux stories: Firefox/Konquerer/Mozilla Variants: 75-80%

Apple stories: Safari: 50%

All others: IE: 50%

Taco, where are my Apache logs?

frosT pist

[Anonymous Coward]

America. You, Of a solid dose notorious OpenBSD have somebody just For the record, I 4ill myself like First, you have to I thought it was my I type this.

Already there.

[iplayfast]

I run a fairly busy site that has the following stats:
1. Internet Explorer 97,589 75.07%
2. Firefox 26,383 20.30%
3. Safari 4,844 3.73%
4. Opera 500 0.38%
5. Netscape 329 0.25%
6. Mozilla 270 0.21%
7. Konqueror 37 0.03%
8. Camino 21 0.02%
9. Mozilla Compatible Agent 6 > 0.00%
10.
Playstation 3 5 > 0.00%

What is interesting to note is that this site is for stock investors so think middle aged, none-technical crowd.
(Com-on Konqueror!)

Re:Already there.

[pembo13]

I think Konqueror often pretends to be other browsers. User agent switching is very obvious to do in Konqueror (last I checked) and often renders just as well as other browsers.

Re:Already there.

[Gavagai80]

The percentage of konqueror users who fake the user agent is bound to be lower than 50%, so it's an insignificant difference. I certainly keep konq with its own user agent.

Re:Already there.

[Raenex]

What is interesting to note is that this site is for stock investors so think middle aged, none-technical crowd. Lots of people in tech invest in stocks. There were 300 comments on the "Google to Offer Real-Time Stock Quotes" story, a decent number.

Tech people tend to have surplus money and like to think they can outsmart the market.

Re:intended effects

[rfc11fan]

As to "One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects.." . . . what makes you think that WL Messenger DOESN'T apply this particular system setting *as intended*?

YOU FAIL iT

[Anonymous Coward]

Fro8 the openBSD

How? No browser? Which browsers?

[Nerdposeur]

I hate IE as much as anyone else, but would it be feasible to do otherwise? The alternatives I see are:

• Include a bunch of browsers - but which ones? And wouldn't this be called "bloat?"
• Not include any browser - but wouldn't people be irritated?
• Include IE or some tiny lightweight browser whose startup page is a list of browsers for your downloading - but might this confuse Grandma?

Again, I'd be happy if nobody was using IE, but it does make sense that Windows needs to make it easy for users to start accessing the internet, and including a browser seems like a reasonable choice - as long as you're not locked in.

Re:How? No browser? Which browsers?

[VJ42]

You don't need a browser to get firefox:
Start -> Run -> "ftp" -> "open releases.mozilla.org" etc. ... ;P

Re:How? No browser? Which browsers?

[Nerdposeur]

Right. YOU don't need a browser to get Firefox. :)

Discredited Science

[immcintosh]

I know in its original form it's been mostly discredited, but I'm wondering if something like the "hundredth monkey effect" is going to take hold with Firefox in the near future. Will there be an inflection point in its usage share?

Above already

[JShadow21]

My company's site, a small biotech, is consistently around 30% according to Google Analytics

Firebug

[MisterSquirrel]

I use primarily Firefox during web development, because it seems more efficient and sensible to target a reasonably compliant browser first, and then adjust to IE afterward. I use Firefox mostly because having Firebug available is so useful during development and debugging.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic? -Sorry for the font

[owlstead]

Ah, my options were still set to "code". Stupid option anyway, if I want code included, it's in *addition* to normal text. I've not seen a single comment entirely consisting of code. See experts exchange for a better idea.

My site averages 40-45% share for FF

[drew30319]

While not a large site by any means (close to 10,000 unique visitors per month) I've been pleased to see a 40-45% share for Firefox in the past six months (up from about 25-30% a year ago).

It is a non-profit group that I run dedicated to the elimination of Teen Dating Violence ( http://www.jenniferann.org/ ) so there's no technology bias that I'm aware of. For the interested few (likely smaller than that!) here are the stats for May 2008 with 107,004 visits:

FF 45.8%
IE 42.5
Safari 4.4
Opera 2.6
Mozilla(?), Netscape, Camino, K-Meleon, Phoenix and Unknown round out the remainder.

I'm glad to see FF continue to grow - about two years ago I was consulting for a top bank and they refused to QA their customer-facing portal for credit cards with FF. When I did some ad-hoc UI testing the site was filled with errors for FF users - some of these errors were significant and were/are, as I pointed out to them, potential compliance issues.

You can lead a bank to water...

Drew Crecente
Director, Jennifer Ann's Group
http://jenniferann.org/

The Default Browser Option

[srobert]

It may seem like cheating to set up the install such that you have to click a box to have it not be the default. But they're only responding to the anti-competitive approach of Microsoft which sets up IE as the default before you even get the computer out of the box.

Installer and user

[Anonymous Coward]

But software is installed by the super-user, who shouldn't be involved in regular users' personal preferences.

20% was reached a long time ago

[twickline]

http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Has FireFox at 29.3% and 39.1%

Forget playing fair

[Anonymous Coward]

here is what i would like to see firefox do:

if (defaultBrowser lte IE6) {
defaultBrowser=firefox
}

no questions asked.

Article summary incorrect

[roca]

Vince Vizzaccaro is not a Mozilla VP. He seems to work for Net Applications.

I like it but it's slow

[jweller13]

I just started using Firefox instead of IE and really like it. Particularly the Find feature. However it is much slower than IE. I hope version 3 speeds it up.

Hellooooooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe it's been way over 20% in a long time... duh

Linux on the desktop

[Prien715]

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.

Linux fails because it's not anywhere approaching "easy to use" as a desktop. I find it much easier to install Pidgin (formerly GAim) on Windows and Mac compared to Linux. And MacOS is Unix. I've never owned a Mac...and my livelihood consists entirely of developing software exclusively for Linux. And GAim was developed as a Linux application.

I'm not trying to bash Linux, but really, the first step in getting better is admitting you have a problem;)

Re:Linux on the desktop

[Tweenk]

I find it much easier to install Pidgin (formerly GAim) on Windows and Mac compared to Linux. Because you don't know about package managers, or didn't care to check out the "Add/Remove..." option in the apps menu?
I don't know how software installation can be easier that it currently is. The only major problem is that it's different, and that Windows' "Add/Remove Software" dialog doesn't actually let you add any software.

Re:Linux on the desktop

[Prien715]

Dependency hell?

Oh wise one please tell me how to update Pidgin without needing to recompile GTK+ to a current version only to have it want a new version libPNG. And after doing that, I have to put it in a new place so other programs which want an older version don't try to use it as a runtime library (unless I want to update Gnome too!)

God, you're right. It's so easy! I'm obviously just not trying.

Or else I need to download distro du jour, in this case Fedora or CentOS/RHEL! And then, as I know from experience, software Y won't have a package for my version of the distro!

On windows, I downloaded the package and hit next 5-6 times -- only through my windows expert training was I able to figure it out! ./configure && make && sudo make install + dependency hell is so much easier! Thank you!

Opera...

[pilbender]

ought to be browser enough for anyone.

I should note that, no matter what, I have never used Internet Explorer for anything but testing on the job. 5 years ago I took some heat for it too. I was scolded at a couple of different jobs as a result of not using IE as my primary browser. I can assure everyone that I did not comply and I could care less what happened with any of them now... one company was dissolved after I'd left :-D

We didn't give in and Firefox has helped us win.

According to my webstats...

[BigBadBus]

...all Firefox variants amount to a 25.57% share (and rising) of people visiting my webpages.

I hope it stops crashing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... on my ubuntu box. It crashes about 20 times a day specially when watching flash content

but what about ie6?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to know why anyone, anywhere still uses IE6.
Looking over some stats for a medium traffic site with an older demographic, we have something like 62% IE, 25% FF.

However, of the Firefox 25%, 21 are either running the newest 2.xx version or version 3. For IE, on the other hand, 24 out of the 62% are running IE6 (!)

I certainly wouldn't choose IE7 over Firefox (or Safari, or Konqueror...), but at least it's usable. IE6, on the other hand needs to just disappear off the face of the earth.

Is there some reason why these people aren't upgrading?

default browser

[justleavealonemmmkay]

Who the fuck launches a browser because it's the default browser ?

What's the ratio of explicit brower icon/menu launch vs. web link launch ? It must be one of the highest on the market compared to other applications. As much as it doesn't make sense to "open adobe acrobat then open the file open dialog to open a pdf file" or "open OOO/MSWord then open the file open dialog to open a doc file" (most people will just click directly on the document's icon), it seems to me most web browsers, like mail clients are launched explicitly by...launching them.

The metaphor is just different: in case of a doc or pdf or mp3 file, you generally already "got" the file. The entry point for a web page is in most cases a link on...another web page. Hence you've already got to be in the browser to pass through that entry point.

You'll object that people now use offline RSS readers to browse headlines, and that will use the default browser setting to launch the default browser. That's true, but people who install offline readers are more educated and more likely to use firefox. They also must be a minority compared to online RSS readers.

Statistics for beginners

[Anonymous Coward]

1: There is no right number.

"starts the app for the first time"

[Animaether]

That's the thing, though - that's starting the app for the first time. I consider that part of installation - it's where you ask the user the basic necessities on preferences.

But that's the first time / part of installation. Not the 2nd time you run it, not the 3rd time, not every. single. time. after that.
If you want to change the preference later - yay, use the preferences menus available to you.

Personally I'm all for the SysAdmin, under direction of some higher-up, making FF the default (or not, again, it's an option during installation) whether it asks during the factual binaries installation procedure or as part of the installation finish-up on first run, rather than asking 'the user'... lest a SysAdmin ends up with half a dozen different browsers to support; surely a no-no in the 'corporations' you speak of.
If a user changes it later, they can have a talk with the SysAdmin.

hope ff can get 30% of the market, IE sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

hope ff can get 30% of the market, IE sucks