Slashdot Mirror
Firefox's Effect On Other Browsers
An anonymous reader points out an interview with Mozilla's "evangelist," Christopher Blizzard, regarding the future of Firefox and how it affects other browsers. It's an Austrian site, so forgive the comma abuse. From derStandard:
"It's sort of interesting though, part of our strategy is to make sure, that we continue making change and the indirect effect of this is that Microsoft continues to have to do releases, because if we get so far ahead that we're able to drive the platform they are not able to keep up and keep their users. I mean, we have this joke which says 'Internet Explorer 7 is the best release we ever did,' because they would not have done it, if we would have not built Firefox. And the same is true for Apple, they are doing a lot to keep up with us. Safari 3.1 is a good example, as far as we see it, the only reason they did this release was that Firefox 3 would come out and have Javascript speed which would be twice as fast as theirs, cause that's how it was before. So by pushing other people to make releases we can go on our mission to make sure the web stays healthy."
What astonishes me is more that this latest release has gotten even my totally non-tech-savvy friends to download it and acknowledge its superiority to Internet Explorer 7. The Firefox team has not only improved the browser for those of us who already used it, but managed to convert another large segment of the market. It's sort of like the Nintendo Wii effect -- they realized it made more sense not to enlarge their slice of the tech-savvy pie, but to expand the pie to include casual users as well. Or at least that's how I see it, feel free to correct me with your own interpretation.
Or maybe they did it because they were pushing javascript apps for the iPhone, and working on the javascript-based SproutCore frameworks and the associated MobileMe apps.
Not everything revolves around Firefox.
Apple did not release Safari because of Firefox. After all, Firefox was on Apple. They released it because they wanted to be in control of their future. As it was, MS had announced that they were going to pull MSIE from them. What amazes me, is that Apple has not pushed OO to be on there. They would be smart to add a few coders to the project just to ensure that it can compete against Office on their platform.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are indeed correct - but there was more to it than that. Keep in mind that at the time they put Win2K into the planning stages, OS/2 had the server market (due to all the vertical market businesses that IBM catered to). MS needed something that competed, and was decent.
Of course, the other added factor was continually breaking and changing networking implementations and such to ensure that since "your" workstations (mostly) ran Windows, the server had to as well.
Before that, you could manage a Windows domain from OS/2 simply by drag-n-drop. Since MS couldnt beat that (and still doesnt have anything remotely close), they had to make another release (both for competitive reasons and to break compatibility with LanMan).
The key thing (competition) is what died in those areas... fortunately in the browser market, MS can no longer leverage their monopoly to create a similar situation, leaving everyone having to either play catch-up to stay in the game or fighting to stay ahead. We all benefit...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Except Opera lagged behind with the most significant feature: being free.
According to the wiki timeline it wasn't until around 2000 when a 'free' version became available (supported by inbuilt ads), and then as recent as 2005 when finally the ads were removed.
The SQLite manager add-on is incredible.
I'm looking forward to canned index databases for interesting site(s).
The whole idea of exposing data to the user is going to lead to some interesting long-term effects.
If nothing else, one hopes that it will help usher the demise of that ugly data Bastille called the Windows Registry.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Firefox will eventually use tamarin, which should be on par with Squirelfish.
Yes, but Squirelfish was developed first. Hence proving my point, Firefox is not the only leader in innovation; as this "evangelist" seems to be implying.
I suggest taking a look at the commit history of both Gecko and Webkit in the last year or so where JS perf is concerned.
You'll find that they've basically been pushing each other, in almost perfect alternation: one checks in a patch that makes it faster, the other responds with changes that make it faster, etc.
Seriously, go read the checkin logs.
According to the wiki timeline it wasn't until around 2000 when a 'free' version became available
...and this stops you from using it now, why?
KDE open-sourced KHTML. Apple didn't have a choice in the matter.
Nonsense. KHTML is LGPL. Apple could have used the libraries without contributing anything back.
Moreover, the DOM is Apple's, not KHTML's. WebCore, the basic component of WebKit, has very little relationship to KHTML.
It was so divergent that the KDE folks pretty much had to accept WebKit as the new KHTML if they wanted to accept the improvements.
That's not at all true. Most of the improvements shared back upstream, including KHTML's ability to pass Acid2, were adapted prior to the merger. KDE adopted WebKit by choice. There was nothing stopping them from continuing development of KHTML separately, nor was their any requirement that the KDE people actually adopt any of Apple's improvements.
Sour grapes that KHTML was largely abandoned in favor of something better doesn't explain why it's WebKit, and not KHTML, that is being adopted by other platforms.
I hated every alternative to Opera until I tried... oh wait, nevermind. Still hate every alternative.
See what I did there? Completely subjective.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
LGPL isn't the same as a BSD permissive-style license,
No. But neither is it the same as the GPL generally.
The reason it was known as the Library GPL is that it allowed the non-contributory use of GPL'd libraries by other types of software licensed under terms incompatible with the GPL.
The KHTML library changes would have had to be shared per the terms of the licenses. This requirement, however, does not even encompass all of WebCore, let alone WebKit.
As far as I know, however, any changes or improvements made to the LGPL'ed programme itself must be distributed Freely, with source, if it is to be distributed at all.
Any changed or improvements to the LGPL'd software, which it is a complete program or a library. In the case of KHTML, it is a set of libraries. Those libraries were adopted into the codebase for WebCore--and only those libraries derived from the KHTML libraries would need to be shared.
It does not extend to other libraries written by Apple or any other developer, and it does not extend to products merely containing those libraries. Limiting that "wagon-hitching" (widely, and in some ways regrettably, known as "parasitic") effect of the GPL is the reason the LGPL exists in the first place.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer
What about the Firefox team vs Opera?
I still have no idea why everyone discounts Opera so much when it is functionally similar to Firefox with most of the common extentions.
Because Opera's not firefox.
It's functionally similar but the UI isn't worse, it's just different. The browser behavior... isn't worse, it's different, and I prefer Firefox over opera. Even though opera is so feature rich. It's the reason why I have an iphone and not any number of other 3G phones with more features but different behavior
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Seriously, I understand it's come far in sheer user counts for being trendy, but if you want to talk about browsers ripping off features then I find it curious he failed to mention Opera.
Because everything that people tote about Firefox--albeit in features that you have to plugin yourself--was being done by Opera first and for years before Firefox came along. Mouse gestures, intelligent pop up blocking system integrated into the browser, you name it and those of us had it while using Opera before Firefox was even a buzzword.
And after all these years, Opera continues to reign superior over Firefox in every area that counts: customization, speed, compatibility, portability, innovating new features with subsequent releases. The only thing that makes it difficult is when you hit a site that denies access, only because you're not using either IE or Firefox...despite Opera being more compatible with web standards and the like. Ponder that. Firefox wasn't the solution to any of the web's problems, it's part of the problem. It's an imitator just the same as IE, and dominating the market despite providing an inferior experience. The only boast to be made is that it's better than IE, and that isn't saying a whole lot.
Well, if not Opera, there would probably be no FireFox. As obviously FireFox was born as a free opensource alternative to Opera.
So who do we thank?..
Well we can probably thank FireFox for pushing Opera to get rid of those ads it used to have. ;)
Why is Opera never given its due? Opera engineers always come up with the new ideas and inventions, the rest blatantly copy them and fashion them as their own. Most people clearly see microsoft copying from "firefox", but opera being obscure, few notice that everyone is actually copying from opera. and now firefox has the nerve to say theyre the ones making other browsers better.
or even competition. I don't view them that way (I don't pay for any of them) - they're just different choices.
And to all those ignorant mods who called me a troll: Opera has been around in fairly significant numbers since about 2000. Even if it had minimal market share, that is the timeframe in which it became noticed by the web cognoscenti. Firefox came out around the end of 2004 (pre-Mozilla came out around the end of 2002).
At the time Mozilla/Firefox was being formed, IE was pretty static, with no significant feature development occurring (IE6 in 2001, IE7 not until 2006). IE certainly wasn't driving feature development in other browsers. Safari didn't even exist in public until 2003.
In addition to the obvious tabbed browsing (no, they didn't invent tabs, but they did popularize them in browsers), Opera has also set the bar for standards support and rendering speed.
Specifically with reference to the article and Mozilla/Firefox, the three most significant UI features of Mozilla/Firefox, tabbed browsing, easy inline find, and custom shortcuts, all appeared in Opera previously.
Yes, Opera has been a significant factor in driving feature development in other browsers, and it deserves that recognition and respect, even if you choose to use something else.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
.
The reason why Safari came out with the faster JavaScript is that the faster JavaScript was needed for the MobileMe service's web interface.
It is nothing more than trivially humorous that a FireFox fanboy describes the world as being Firefox-centric.
Having said that, competition, whether imagined (as with Mozilla's "evangelist," Christopher Blizzard) or real, is always for the better.
That was great, but Opera Software's decision to charge for a full-featured version without intruding ads up until 2005 severely cut its marketshare compared to IE (which shipped as part of Windows since Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2) and Firefox (which was always free to use). If Opera Software had decided to make its browser truly "free" in 2003 its marketshare would be vastly larger, that's to be sure.
IE7 has the security and reliability. It's also quicker than FF and doesn't leak memory like a sieve
In the classic battle of IE7 vs FF2, he's absolutely right.
I tried FF2 a few years ago when everyone seemed unable to get enough of the kool-aid. While superior to IE6 for its tabbed browsing, once IE7 rolled out, FF2 lost its only edge.
Today, I run FF3 with minimal addons. I don't use NoScript, because it turns normal web browsing into a circus of "allow" clicks, and makes UAC look good.
Still though, I refuse to drink either side's kool-aid. Firefox is not the shining gift from heaven some people think it is, and IE is not the complete trash slashdotters generally insist it is.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.