Slashdot Mirror


Why Mozilla Needs To Go Into Survival Mode

Crazzaper writes "I have been using Firefox for many years, and the war of the browsers has been around for longer than that. It just so happens that now we have a lot of options out there: IE, FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and others. People are always talking about how one browser is going to take down another, but maybe that's not the issue at all. It seems very possible that one browser, like Firefox, can be taken down by multiple browsers at once, whether or not there was any intention to compete specifically with Firefox. I hadn't seen it this way, but I do now."

48 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Firefox lite. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What they need to do is remember why the project started and get back to that.

    Themes in 3.6? WTF were they thinking?

    Chrome and Safari both have excellent built in Web dev/javascript tools, I don't even miss Web Developer Toolbar.

    1. Re:Firefox lite. by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not themes, personas. Themes have been around for a long long time, but I think the personas as silly & superfluous.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Firefox lite. by EvilBudMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about Ad Block Plus? That keeps me on Firefox and of course the MASA theme. (Monkeys In Aftermarket Space Administration)

    3. Re:Firefox lite. by doti · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, the project started to give people choice.
      Their goal was to save the web from a standards-hurting monopoly, not necessarily be the #1 in user base.

      Thanks to Mozilla, we have that now.
      Firefox can die in peace, the web was saved.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    4. Re:Firefox lite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently, the adblockers for chrome still download the ads, they just prevent the ad from displaying

    5. Re:Firefox lite. by RanCossack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know. You'd be surprised how many people would love an internet browser that does nothing but display a web page as fast as possible.

      Better way of phrasing that starts with 'You'd be surprised how few people..."

      Let's face it -- Aurora, Midori, and other browsers that do that have been around for years. People don't use them because they want more their browser to do more.

    6. Re:Firefox lite. by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You'd be surprised how many people would love an internet browser that does nothing but display a web page as fast as possible."

      Those are probably the same idiots who want a cell phone that reliably makes phone calls.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    7. Re:Firefox lite. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People don't use them because they don't know about them. You think Firefox would have taken off if every Geek didn't install it on their mothers computer?

    8. Re:Firefox lite. by uberjack · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love Firefox because of its plugins (Firebug alone is the bee's knees), but it's an absolute memory hog. On both my Windows and Linux machines, I have to restart the application every few days - it's not shy about eating up 4-5 GB of RAM easily. In many cases (and if I leave the system running long enough, as I often do) it consumes all of the available memory until the system slows to a crawl. It especially annoys me that it's been this way for the last 2-3 years, and still nothing is being done.

    9. Re:Firefox lite. by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Informative

      On my little netbook, with the short-but-wide screen, I did as somersault did and put the address bar next to the menu, but also went a step further:

      Tree Style Tab

      That takes your tabs, puts them on another side, (left, right, top or bottom, actually) and orders them as a tree, with the page you spawned tabs from as the main branch. Since I have widescreen monitors on everything, I set mine to be on the left. That gives me the maximum vertical space, and to be frank, I like the tree style, now that I've gotten used to it. I find it far more sensible than the default of putting them on top next to each other.

      That and NoScript keep me stuck on Firefox. I won't choose another browser until I can get something as powerful and easy to use as NoScript for it. Every time I use a computer without it, it kills me. Life is so much better when you control what your browser does.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    10. Re:Firefox lite. by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd be surprised at the number of people who think that's what they want, but if they got it would then complain that Facebook didn't work properly, or Google mail or maps, etc.

    11. Re:Firefox lite. by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      which is why we still use firefox, as the chrome version = security risk.

      Meanwhile, firefox's "survival requirement" is nonexistent. They're doing just fine. They need to work on bloat and keep improving firefox, but they're not about to run out of relevance.

      The money loss from the google deal ending may or may not be a big deal. It depends on if they keep up the deal again. They most certainly might do so, as google might see it as a smart investment to guarantee competition, basically.

    12. Re:Firefox lite. by ChronoReverse · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you ever considered using a new profile and examining which plugins you use? Because a clean install of FF3.6 certainly won't do that.

    13. Re:Firefox lite. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      In particular, it's a latency problem for how fast pages render, even if you're not worried about the bandwidth. Slow 3rd-party advertisement and analytics servers still hold up the whole parade with Chrome adblockers: the adblock will run after you've sat around waiting on all that junk to resolve and load. With FF AdBlock's approach, if you block those 3rd-party domains, they get chopped out before the browser even bothers to resolve their DNS.

    14. Re:Firefox lite. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is also the issue of downloading huge amounts of ad data -- which all go against your 5gb (matters here) or 250gb (not so big here) per month limit.
      The advertisers are using *MY* download quota without paying me for it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Firefox lite. by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you're concerned about bloat, maybe try Mozilla's seaMonkey? It looks like the old 90s-era Netscape, but with the same engine as Firefox.

      Maybe my sarcasm detector is just failing, but you do realize that Firefox originated as a branch off of Seamonkey because it was thought that Seamonkey had become too bloated?

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    16. Re:Firefox lite. by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think so. When you combine it with other necessary concepts like NAT, proxies and IPv4 vs IPv6 it can get confusing pretty quickly.

      "Hey dude, my IP address is 192.168.0.100 -- what's yours?"
      "Well that's funny, I have the same one!"

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    17. Re:Firefox lite. by mdf356 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I click on the ads that have hot chicks in tight geek-themed t-shirts.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    18. Re:Firefox lite. by reidconti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, I think you've got it backwards. The advertisers are paying the bill for the content you're viewing.

      Not that I have a moral issue with ad-blocking; quite the opposite. I just think it's silly that you're expecting to be reimbursed for your ad downloads. The CONTENT is the reimbursement.

    19. Re:Firefox lite. by aix+tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it has to do with them thar "Com-Puh-Tars"

      There must be some funny effect with them. People who are perfectly able to do something when you tell them (quite complicated) "Do $STUFF" completely lock up mentally when you tell them "Do $STUFF on the computer"

      Funny enough, the patent office seems to share this. Patents to "Do $STUFF in $WAY" that are completely obvious, and would be rejected immediately by any sane person get granted when they add two words. "Do $STUFF in $WAY on computer"

    20. Re:Firefox lite. by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's called "Ease of Use". Not everyone even knows what an IP address is, and expecting every single person on the planet to understand the concept is ludicrous.

      And some of us who know what an IP address is don't want to waste time mucking with system files when there is a far more elegant solution.

      Some of us are not 14 anymore, and don't think that taking the hard route makes one "hardcore".

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    21. Re:Firefox lite. by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just installed Opera & Chrome to do a little "taste test". I opened all three browsers & pointed them to Slashdot. One tab open for each one. According to Process Explorer, here is the memory footprint for each program.

      Firefox = 214,832 K
      Chrome = 111,820 K & 105,376 K
      Opera = 218,212 K

      I'm not seeing a big difference here.

      This is on a Athlon Phenom II X4 955 w/ 4 GB of DDR3 running WinXP SP3.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  2. Go get your guns? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    So does this mean they have to stock up on rice and firearms and survival gear?

    1. Re:Go get your guns? by DieNadel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This was marked as funny, but I actually would like to know what kind of strategies FF should follow.

      What does "survival mode" means in this case? Race in new features?

      --
      Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    2. Re:Go get your guns? by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not necessarily but keep your gcc handy just in case!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:Go get your guns? by westlake · · Score: 5, Informative

      What does "survival mode" means in this case? Race in new features?

      Find new money. Before Google pulls the plug.

    4. Re:Go get your guns? by Burz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It means stop adding new features and bear down on the core mission:
      Make it more reliable, secure and faster.

  3. Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless, the extensions I use are ported to another browser, I couldn't change from Firefox.

  4. Name recognition? by headkase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One browser can be taken down by others? I thought they should have been competing on technical excellence instead of name recognition. Nobody was complaining when it was IE being taken down by Firefox! Falling into the trap that I like it so everyone should is just weakening yourself in the long-term. If something better than Firefox appears then the logical choice is bu-bye Firefox! But people are rarely logical and tend to just do what others are doing.

    --
    Shh.
  5. What they need... by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They really just need to go on a diet.
    Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:What they need... by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?

      While FF has certainly gained features, it hasn't slowed down while doing so. In fact, it's seen fairly dramatic performance INCREASES. FF hasn't gotten any slower; expectations have sharply risen.

      We now expect to be able to program a 3D FPS in Javascript and CSS. The very idea was considered laughable just a few years ago. I've spent the last year building a statistical computation software that's entirely web-based, and entirely written in javascript. This, too, would have been a laughable goal if not for the dramatic performance improvements in FF and Chrome. (We don't currently support IE8 because it's just too slow; hopefully IE9 will be worthy of supporting)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:What they need... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've spent the last year building a statistical computation software that's entirely web-based, and entirely written in javascript.

      Dear god! Why?

      Some people believe that in order to grow closer to their spiritual nature they must torture their physical form to the utmost.

      Corporeal Mortification - not just for overzealous Catholics anymore.

  6. Re:No extensions, no FF killer by abigor · · Score: 5, Informative

    This will certainly interest you then: https://chrome.google.com/extensions

  7. Firefaux by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should develop another browser, Firefaux, and make it appear to be the biggest threat in the browser wars. Firefox can then team up with Chrome and Opera to take down Firefaux, all the while distracting everyone from the need to take down Firefox instead. Just re-animate Firefaux as needed to keep up the distraction. No one will ever catch on to the connection between Firefox and Firefaux, and world domination will only be inevitable.

  8. No, what needs to happen is: by abolitiontheory · · Score: 3, Funny

    Survivor 10: Internet Edition. Web-browsers battle it our in the toughest of surfing environments: hundreds of tabs, incompatible add-ons, swamps of malware, installs on wristwatches! (Spoiler: In the finale, FireFox and IE team up (gasp!) in a last ditch effort to defeat young upstarts Safari and Chrome!)

  9. Re:Serious inquiry re: Adblock by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    Adblock blocks ads that NoScript doesn't. I may want Java script to generally run on a specific website. So i would whitelist that site in NoScript. Without Adblock I would then get ads while on that site. With both I can allow scripts while still enjoying an ad-free browsing experience.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  10. Battle of the Browsers simply isn't what it used by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to be.

    Back in the early 1990s, it was seen as a threat by Microsoft to usurp the OS paradigm. They thought whoever controlled the browser market controlls the internet and what it can do -- the tail wagging the dog and it seemed like the future of computing was at stake. And for a while, it succeeded when IE took over and had ridiculously large marketshare.

    But now that the ecosystem is more varied, the browser simply does not have this power. Until a browser become so dominant again that they can embrace, extend, extinguish standards, it really doesn't matter that much anymore. Now, the best browser is almost as impotent to change computing as the best picture viewing software (except for maybe data gathering and ad revenue) -- if everything is correctly specced JPGs, PNGs, etcetera -- the picture viewer doesn't matter that much and can be readily interchange with regards to personal preference.

    Mobile phones is one exception but also because you can't swap out browsers/rendering engines.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Not buying it by Mr.+Spontaneous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, Firefox has some issues. Yes, the Mozilla team needs to fix them. However, I think this article is being overly sensationalistic (surprise, surprise). In a wonderful bout of irony, the same forces that made long-standing IE users jump to FF are keeping them using FF. Some are averse to learning a new UI/control scheme, others needs certain extensions to remain productive. Then there are a few, like me, who don't see the performance/crashing issues that others report. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I haven't experienced them.

    Additionally, FF has been approved for use in many businesses, as well as the DoD/DHS to run on their networks. Chrome, AFAIK, hasn't.

    With these forces slowing down non-Firefox adoption, the Mozilla team has bought themselves some crucial time in the quest to right some of their browser's weaknesses. Hopefully they'll be able to meet that challenge, and, from reading the various blogs published to Planet Mozilla, I'm fairly confident that they will.

    --
    Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
    1. Re:Not buying it by shallot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, I think this article is being overly sensationalistic (surprise, surprise).

      It's not actually so much sensationalist as much as it's pointless. It's a huge laundry list of statistics that don't actually add up to any really worthwhile conclusions on their own merit. And I always hate it when people blow up the graph of a 1-6% change (in this instance Chrome) to the same absolute size as the other graphs where data is tenfold, but the slope is steeper so it looks fantastic. That's just plain silly. A less generic graph would have been one showing changes relative to IE6's graph (decline), or something like that, something that actually paints a picture of what is going on, beyond the obvious. But that would take some real effort...

  13. #1 firefox issue by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't manage it in a corporate/enterprise environment. Push out updates? Not as a limited user. Push out configuration? Not simply. Push out plugins, or plugin updates? Not simple.

    That, more than anything else, will keep firefox out of the enterprise/corporate markets. If that even matters to them, seeing how this is still an issue.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:#1 firefox issue by jpcarter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Someone's even created ADM templates for you.

      Though it's still not as easy as IE is with WSUS, it's not any worse than trying to keep Java, Flash & Acrobat up to date & properly configured.

  14. Mind controlled firefox by Veramocor · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are actually working on a mind controlled version of Firefox. Unfortunately it only works if you think in Russian.

    --
    Veramocor
  15. HTML5, Web 3.0 by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing that concerns me the most is the issue with HTML5 video codecs. Microsoft, Google and Apple all want Flash to die. Apple's latest licensing change with iPhone OS 4.0 is a full-out declaration of war against Adobe.

    HTML5, SVG, hyper-optimized Javascript and the embedded video tag will make Flash redundant. If Firefox cannot stay on the bleeding edge of these advancements then it does not stand a chance.

    So I suggest less bells and whistles (skinning / themes, for example), and more concentration on HTML5 - especially the video codec licensing / patent issue.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  16. theora = suicide by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope Mozilla gets a clue about their video tag implementation while they still have a chance. It is quite obvious that sites want HTML5 but they also want to stream h264. If Mozilla doesn't provide a way to do this, the browser is going to get sidelined.

  17. Chrome is the future by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome is the future because what could go wrong with giving one company complete domination of the Internet?
    I don't have anything against Google, but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me. It is not unreasonable to think that it might happen. Google is already the overwhelmingly dominant search engine. They have been fairly successful at most of the things they have worked at.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  18. Re:I agree with the summary. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FF loads in about 1-2 seconds on my machine. I'm calling bullshit on your friend downloading, installing, and getting right back to work in that amount of time. If it's true, your friend has other problems besides Firefox.

  19. Re:No extensions, no FF killer by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When people gush about Firefox extensions they gush about PARTICULAR extensions. They just don't mindlessly drone on about the feature in general. They tend to specifically cite what it is that they personally get out of the extensions that are available and what needs to be on competing browser.

    All you've told me is that IE has some similar extension feature.

    I have no clue whether or not any of those extensions are someone I would actually want to use.

    Although IE just has a long history of being a malware magnet. Even if you compare pristine versions of browsers, IE sucks.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.