Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do More People Use Firefox Than Edge and IE Combined? (computerworld.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the popularity-contests dept.

A funny thing happened when Net Applications' statistics began excluding fake traffic from ad-defrauding bots. Computerworld reports: Microsoft's Edge browser is less popular with Windows 10 users than earlier thought, if revised data from a U.S. analytics vendor can be believed. According to Net Applications of Aliso Viejo, Calif., Edge has been designated the primary browser by fewer than one in six Windows 10 users for more than a year and a half. That's a significant downgrading of Edge's user share statistics from the browser's portrayal before this month...

By comparing Edge's old and new shares, it was evident that as much as half of the earlier Edge traffic had been faked by bots. The portion of Edge's share credited to bots fluctuated month to month, but fell below 30% in only 4 of the 19 months for which Net Applications provided data... Microsoft's legacy browser, Internet Explorer (IE) also was revealed as a Potemkin village. Under the old data regime, which included bots, IE's user share was overblown, at times more than double the no-bots reality. Take May 2016 as an example. With bots, Net Applications pegged IE at 33.7%; without bots, IE's user share dwindled to just 14.9%. Together, IE and Edge - in other words, Microsoft's browsers - accounted for only 16.3% of the global user share last month using Net Applications' new calculations... In fact, the combined IE and Edge now face a once unthinkable fate: falling beneath Mozilla's Firefox.
StatCounter's stats on browser usage already show more people have already been using Firefox than both of Microsoft's browsers combined -- in 12 of the last 13 months.

152 comments

  1. It's reverse for me, at work. by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

    Required web-based systems running SAP and requiring 2FA just don't work well with FF, and Chrome refuses to connect to the server (something to do with TLS, no doubt).

    Thus, I use IE11 most frequently.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you use websites/apps with heavy javascript, chrome is much faster, firefox is a close on second place behind chrome. If you use lots of canvas, firefox wins a little above chrome in speed, edge being far behind it. But this is only the observation I noticed when developing my apps...

      But you are right microsoft browsers are again better with such stuff....

    2. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      I wonder, how much of that usage done in the work place can be measured from the outside? I do use IE at work just on the basis of covering my ass: I do not want be the guy that leaked information to the outside world by installing Chrome or Firefox. IE is installed and managed by the IT team, as such, they should come up with standard configurations that are not leaky.

    3. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Required web-based systems running SAP and requiring 2FA just don't work well with FF, and Chrome refuses to connect to the server (something to do with TLS, no doubt).

      Thus, I use IE11 most frequently.

      I have the same problem. But, it's not because there is something wrong with Firefox or Chrome. It's because the web-based systems you need to access are horrendous, poorly written shit, specifically designed to work with Internet Explorer circa 2003, and not ever tested against other browsers.

      Edge and IE are completely useless for anything other than the simplest and most basic web browsing, or business applications specifically written to work with them. Out in the real world, both of Microsoft's browsers are years behind FF and Chrome and lack most of the functionality that users have come to expect.

    4. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Out in the real world, both of Microsoft's browsers are years behind FF and Chrome and lack most of the functionality that users have come to expect.

      The Real World is where I get my paycheck. Thus, I use IE11.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      IE is installed and managed by the IT team, as such, they should come up with standard configurations that are not leaky.

      The first part of that sentence suggests that the second part's assertion is probably false.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      We have the opposite problem. Our sites only work in Chrome and Firefox. We use Google maps extensively and IE11 doesn't work properly. In Edge the maps work but it's implementation of the HTML audio tag doesn't seem to work reliably.

      Since none of our customers are without access to either Firefox or Chrome, it's not worth fixing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> IE is installed and managed by the IT team, as such, they should come up with standard configurations that are not leaky.

      > The first part of that sentence suggests that the second part's assertion is probably false.

      You're, of course, and the OP fellow has an incomplete perception of reality.

      Let's fix for him:

      "IE is installed and managed by the IT team, as such, they should come up with standard configurations which I'm not to be blamed because they're leaky."

      I live the same reality, but fortunately we do have Chrome as an option. To make bad things worse, our internal pages -- which do require IE -- no longer work well, meanwhile they do work with Chrome, but reject it.

      I don't use Windows at home, only Linux (because it's easier, not just b/c of Freedom)... and I imagine things must be way worse for Windows home users without support; but the matter of fact is that IE is becoming unusable. I get the hint by colleagues that, when IE freezes, you just restart the browser and it might work. This is one step beyond restart the system IMHO -- easier but you scratch your head thinking "WTF?"

      And Edge is no good, too, it takes control of file associations, getting in front of Adobe Reader (which obviously is better for pdf view). And by forcing Reader usage I've already seen one W10 system go crazy (like Start menu stopped working).

      If anything, Windows is at least responsible for major Flow breaks, rendering productivity seriously hindered...

    8. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The Real World is where I get my paycheck. Thus, I use IE11.

      Careful there, dude. This is what most sex professionals say, y'know...

    9. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government analytics place IE at number two which tends to show a more business end user base for IE. Firefox is at 6% which tends to agree with other stats and Chrome at around 60% again the same or similar to other stats. I guess for me the argument who owns the number two slot so distant to Chrome is pointless since the rest of the browsers share a small percentage of the market anymore. A few percent either way doesn't matter and they all point to a demise in market share not gains. Chrome clearly is winning market share from every other browser out there.

    10. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Which falls under the category "Company Intranet Use", and that's basically the only reason and use for the Microsoft browsers. For all other use another browser is better.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    11. Re: It's reverse for me, at work. by orlanz · · Score: 1

      We went the middle road. Our company is pretty big. About 3 years ago Central authority wanted to get out of IE7. So they standardized on Firefox. Then for some reason went to Chrome. We guess because a lot of our workforce is mobile and it was a battery hog.

      They informed all the devs that the move from IE7 was coming and after 18 months, made Compatibly View off by default. Those apps that didnâ(TM)t adapt can now tell their specific users to configure their browser accordingly.

      Oh, and the standard today is IE11, Firefox, and Chrome (updates were horrendous). But all app people dev for Chrome. We still have many legacy internal websites that are IE6/7 only but year-by-year either they adapt or get shutdown or pass on the additional costs to customers.

      In another 3 years, other than a handful of widget database front ends maintained due to 5-10 year contracts, pretty much everything is standards compliant. Most use Chrome but only because all the end user howtos use Chrome screenshots.

    12. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      But it's just easier to open another IE11 window than to fire up FF or Chrome.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    13. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edge only has one advantage at present, and it's primarily the same advantage Safari has on Macs/iOS, and that it's much less power-draining when the device is on battery.

      Chrome is an absolute pig, because it does nearly everything in software (video decoding, audio mixing, etc), while Firefox has the same disadvantages.

      If you're not using a laptop, there is nearly no reason to use Edge.

      On the other hand, I leave Edge as the default on my desktop and laptop, and manually launch chrome/firefox/opera as needed, keeping firefox for personal stuff, and chrome for business/work stuff. Opera for youtube (since it's not attached to my gmail.) Basically I use the separate browsers as a way to keep separate google SSO sessions running without having to constantly relogin into those, because Chrome is notoriously awful at keeping state when it restarts.

    14. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      This was true for me too a few years ago, many applications used to insist on IE6 although often it was just an arbitrary check which if overridden (eg by changing user agent) they would work fine.

      Now some insist on chrome, while others will work with anything other than IE. I used to keep a VM for IE6 and a copy installed through wine but i've not used it in years now.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      But it's just easier to open another IE11 window than to fire up FF or Chrome.

      Not, if like me, you're a Linux user (also at work), and firing up IE means firing up a VM (newer IE versions won't even work in Wine). Even when IE is running in a VM, it's easier to use a native browser.

    16. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason Chrome is where it is, is because it essentially stole Safari, which was in turn taken from the KHTML project.

      "Melton explained in an e-mail to KDE developers[1] that KHTML and KJS allowed easier development than other available technologies by virtue of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed and standards-compliant."

      And look where we are today. KHTML and Apple couldn't work together, Webkit and Google didn't want to work together anymore so they forked the code base.

      The problem is, really, that Chrome has decreased in quality significantly since being forked from Webkit. Sure it still works, but because it's no longer consistant with Webkit and browsers based upon webkit, we're back to the problem we had in the "version 4.x browser war" where something works fine under Chrome, and isn't tested to work on Safari, Opera or Firefox.

      I've only encountered one really bad inconsistency between browsers, and that was more to do with how firefox behaves with .open() and .close() of iframes, where firefox would destroy the contents of the iframe seemingly randomly, but it worked under Chrome.

      Microsoft Edge, meanwhile ends up further and further behind.

    17. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      I have a four or five year old Trendnet switch whose web interface doesn't render properly in Chrome, Firefox or Edge, so I have to use IE unless I want to go telnet or ssh. So there is definitely embedded legacy applications where IE is still needed, but that's about the only thing left that still forces me into IE.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re: It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's not 'stealing' when you fork an open source project and do a better job of developing it than the original developers did. In fact that is exactly how open source is supposed to work! Modification and redistribution is supposed to be possible!

    19. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by CaroKann · · Score: 1

      At work I have to use IE, Chrome and Edge.
      Some of our internal sites are designed for Chrome, and require Chrome to function. Others require IE to function. With Win10, we also have Edge.
      If only our SharePoint sites would work with Edge, then I would ditch IE all together.

    20. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, the ones here work fine on FF and are horribly slow and often misregister clicks on IE

    21. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SAP recommended corporate browser is Chrome. As an SAP employee, I use FF for all corporate use and it works fine most of the time as long as I import my user certificate. The stuff that doesn't work on FF also won't work on Chrome, and this mostly happens with learning courses. Since I am on a Mac, I need to hop on the Windows Terminal Server and use IE.

    22. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox has containers and profiles for that.

    23. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I have a four or five year old Trendnet switch whose web interface doesn't render properly in Chrome, Firefox or Edge, so I have to use IE unless I want to go telnet or ssh. So there is definitely embedded legacy applications where IE is still needed, but that's about the only thing left that still forces me into IE.

      So ssh in.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you're not using a laptop, there is nearly no reason to use Edge.

      True. The exceptions are testing your site in Edge (for the benefit of laptop users) and hypothetically if some desktop PC maker bundles Windows 10 S.

    25. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's implementation of the HTML audio tag doesn't seem to work reliably.

      How good is it with apostrophes?

    26. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Latest speed tests put Firefox as fastest. Beginning with version 57.1 It is so good that Mozilla has taken out some adverts to toot-their-horn,

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    27. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I use Firefox and Chrome at work, not IE (and I don't have Edge on this computer). They pay me. I figure this is the real world.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      And when the Intranet timecard web site you must use stops working with FF or Chrome, will you heroically stand on principal, not use IE and thus go hungry because you suddenly aren't getting paid, or will you start using IE?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    29. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It works just fine in Chrome. It's not great, but at least it doesn't require IE.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      That didn't answer my question.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    31. Re:It's reverse for me, at work. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is certain software I am required to use. I use it. when I need to. However, this is the Real World, the one that gives me paychecks, and I don't use IE.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. If so, not for much longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure Mozilla will continue its efforts to drive away Firefox users.

    1. Re:If so, not for much longer by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Mozilla will continue its efforts to drive away Firefox users.

      Sadly, yes.

      As long as there is someone out there willing to give them hundreds of millions of dollars in free money every year, no matter how much they fuck up Firefox, then things are only going to get worse.

    2. Re:If so, not for much longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are, by making Firefox 54+ hang when using more than 2 tabs for a couple of hours. When I use Task Manager to kill it, I get back 3+G of memory, but only after killing all 4 firefox.exe processes and plugin_container.exe.

    3. Re: If so, not for much longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they've won me back with Quantum. The current state of play is that all my plugins work, and Firefox now flies again, its fast. I understand now the couple of years of pain we had to go through while all the developer time went on sorting out the engine. Currently I have to use some userchrome to get the layout I want, but Im sure that will improve too.

    4. Re:If so, not for much longer by swm · · Score: 1

      My wife kept hitting this, especially when viewing Amazon or Etsy.
      I couldn't figure out the problem and the only fix is to kill FF.
      Google searches like "Firefox memory" turn up nothing recent or relevant.
      Finally she gave up and switched to IE.
      Sigh...

    5. Re:If so, not for much longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have something strange going on outside of FF or in its settings. At least on Amazon, FF works fine for me, even using NoScript, Privacy Badger, and Disconnect.Me (after some tuning of said blockers). And the *rogue plugin* has never showed up, probably because I always go through the settings after getting an update and make sure (as with Windows) that things are set for reasonable privacy and security (not the same thing).

    6. Re: If so, not for much longer by thsths · · Score: 1

      I agree - Quantum is a massive step forward. It may have broken a lot of plug-ins, but at least it is still a functional and complete browser.

      For Microsoft, Edge was also a big step forward, but unfortunately it felt unfinished for quite a while, and it is only now approaching something you could call a proper browser.

  3. Does anyone really care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Know what time?

    1. Re:Does anyone really care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If so I can't imagine why
      We've all got time enough to cry

  4. Firefox is abusing its market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It decided to take its trust and waste it on a gimmick for a TV show causing malware alerts and even disrupting people’s exams. Thats on top of the XULocolypse and Pocket. Projects like Pale Moon and Waterfox are minor patches to the Mozilla problem we need a big fork that gets rid of the gimmick developers just like Xfree86 to X.org and EGCS to GCC.

    1. Re:Firefox is abusing its market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It decided to take its trust and waste it on a gimmick for a TV show causing malware alerts and even disrupting people’s exams. Thats on top of the XULocolypse and Pocket. Projects like Pale Moon and Waterfox are minor patches to the Mozilla problem we need a big fork that gets rid of the gimmick developers just like Xfree86 to X.org and EGCS to GCC.

      Mozilla suffers from SHWUM (Superfluous Humans With Ulterior Motives) syndrome.

  5. What's a Potemkin village? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would those responsible for the spambots want to artificially prop up Edge? I think someone needs to read about Potemkin village.

    1. Re:What's a Potemkin village? by DeadSeaTrolls · · Score: 1

      But didn't Hillary Clinton tell us that it takes a Potemkin village to raise our trolls?

      --

      "There's no scarcity of spectrum any more than there's a scarcity of the color green.", David Reed

    2. Re:What's a Potemkin village? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It's common for malware or other http tools (eg vulnerability scanners) to pick a user agent that looks like a normal browser, and traditionally most of those used IE...
      You might also get an IE useragent string by default if using some of the built in microsoft functions for making http requests (which it would make sense for bots to do, reuse functionality already present on the host).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re: What's a Potemkin village? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the first time in months that I have seen a discussion on this site that was on technical issues and didnâ(TM)t immediately deteriorate into politics. Usually this is started by leftists, but not always. So eat shit and die, asshole.

    4. Re: What's a Potemkin village? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use MS based user agent tags to encourage MS support in target environments. Also, many of the bots use the default browser tools on the bot infested machines, especially for driving click traffic fraudulently.

  6. Edge pitches so funny it hurts by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Got a Win10 recently. The homepage that came preloaded out of the box in Edge was some serious comparison stats with chrome. In default apps settings switching out of edge begs "please give edge a chance" or something like that. Looks like the only use for edge is to download chrome or firefox.

    There is a God. There is karma. All they did to Netscape! It is justice delayed, no doubt, and all the jerks who did that have cashed out and gone. But I do feel some schadenfreude looking at its problems.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is my function?"

      "You download Firefox!"

      "Oh my god"

      https://pics.onsizzle.com/what-is-my-purpose-you-install-chrome-oh-my-god-3252660.png

    2. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      How is it karma, when you just admitted you gave them money getting a Windows 10 machine?

    3. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So nobody uses FTP anymore?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Corporate IT. VPN support only for win10. what to do?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Obviously: write your own VPN client for Linux!

    6. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still use Edge for Netflix. I use it exclusively for Netflix, as Netflix for some reason decided to cripple their resolution on every other delivery method.

    7. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by arth1 · · Score: 2

      FTP? I still use gopher, you insensitive clod!
      (I actually do - some of the documentation I sometimes access is in a local gopherspace, and hasn't been ported to web yet. One day....)

      FTP pretty much died as mainstream when NAT routers became ubiquitous. Switching from active (PORT) to passive (PASV) ftp on the client side only worked until the FTP servers themselves were also behind a NAT. NAT on both sides means "forget it", unless the server side has an admin who actually knows what he's doing, and controls both the firewall and the FTP server.

      The final nail was the insecurity added because the newer generation of "admins" (and I use this term loosely) didn't understand the FTP protocol, or how to correctly open different ports in different directions, and added rules that also let in hackers. There's likely ten misconfigured FTP firewall rules for each correctly configured one.

    8. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my web sites, IE/Edge is used by about 20% of users.

    9. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netscape committed suicide, it was not Microsoft fault.

    10. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I've read was that Edge is the only one that supports the máximum resolution of Netflix.

    11. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, consumer NAT router things have been opening ports automatically for FTP traffic since at least 2005.

      Do you remember the routers that reset themselves when faced with a "port 0" DCC send on IRC? That's the same functionality. They sniff the traffic on TCP connections to certain ports to do that. Not a terribly good idea, I admit, but probably helpful for the average luser.

      And I've never heard of an FTP server that is behind NAT. Unless you count ones hosted by an individual on a home connection. (Are you perhaps talking about companies' non-public FTP servers?)

    12. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never moved off Kermit myself

    13. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      For bringing files from elsewhere to me, the files are also available via http, which is most frequently my means of learning which files I want. For sending files from me to elsewhere, the recipient places provide cPanel for that now, which is easier to use than their FTP documentation.

    14. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Kermit? So fancy. I'm posting this via Xmodem.

    15. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by pop+ebp · · Score: 1

      FTP pretty much died as mainstream when NAT routers became ubiquitous. Switching from active (PORT) to passive (PASV) ftp on the client side only worked until the FTP servers themselves were also behind a NAT.

      If both sides are behind a NAT, HTTP wouldn't work either (without the serious reconfiguration they you mentioned), no?

    16. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If both sides are behind a NAT, HTTP wouldn't work either (without the serious reconfiguration they you mentioned), no?

      HTTP uses a single connection (usually to remote port 80), and you only have to allow return traffic for the same socket.

      With FTP, you have two connections, with the second not being determined until after the connection.

      With active ftp:
      client port ANY -> server port 21
      client sends "PORT ,,"
      client port X server port 21
      client sends PASV
      server replies "227 ... (,port X / 256>,port X % 256)"
      client port ANY -> server port X

      Here, the remote server's firewall has to accept the second request. Unless the firewall can sniff the traffic and parse the 227 reply, the ftp server has to be set up with a pool of ports used for FTP only, and the firewall configured to open those ports to the same clients that are connected to port 21. This is not entirely safe - one ftp client connected can repeatedly try to connect to other ports in the same range, and may get in before another legitimate ftp user, and be able to get his transfers.

      Normal consumer NAT routers that have a FTP rule normally only trigger opening incoming connections from port 20 for the same hosts you connect to port 21 on. That won't work if the ftp server is behind a fanned NAT, so the remote connection does not come from port 20.
      Passive FTP won't work either if the server is behind NAT, unless the FTP server and its firewall are configured by someone who really know what they're doing. Which means "almost never".

    17. Re:Edge pitches so funny it hurts by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Argh. Let me try this again, because < and > ate half of my other post.

      If both sides are behind a NAT, HTTP wouldn't work either (without the serious reconfiguration they you mentioned), no?

      HTTP uses a single connection (usually to remote port 80), and you only have to allow return traffic for the same socket.

      With FTP, you have two connections, with the second not being determined until after the connection.

      With active ftp:
      client port ANY -> server port 21
      client sends "PORT <ipaddr>,<port X / 256&gt,<port X % 256>"
      client port X <- server port 20

      Note the direction of the arrow - the server connects to the client. This never happens with HTTP.
      The client firewall thus has to allow the incoming connection from the server. If the server is behind a simple NAT, the port number is no longer 20, so the client cannot have a fixed rule saying "accept incoming from port 20 from the same hosts we have outgoing to port 21". The server needs to have a NAT firewall where port 20 is not translated to a different port, or the client has to have a firewall that parses packets containing PORT and opens rules based on that. The latter is dangerous, as the client can be tricked.

      With passive ftp:
      client port ANY -> server port 21
      client sends PASV
      server replies "227 ... (<ipaddr>,port X / 256>,port X % 256)"
      client port ANY -> server port X

      Here, the remote server's firewall has to accept the second request. Unless the firewall can sniff the traffic and parse the 227 reply, the ftp server has to be set up with a pool of ports used for FTP only, and the firewall configured to open those ports to the same clients that are connected to port 21. This is not entirely safe - one ftp client connected can repeatedly try to connect to other ports in the same range, and may get in before another legitimate ftp user, and be able to get his transfers.

      Normal consumer NAT routers that have a FTP rule normally only trigger opening incoming connections from port 20 for the same hosts you connect to port 21 on. That won't work if the ftp server is behind a fanned NAT, so the remote connection does not come from port 20.
      Passive FTP won't work either if the server is behind NAT, unless the FTP server and its firewall are configured by someone who really know what they're doing. Which means "almost never".

  7. You're not going to believe me ... by eneville · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I use FF heavily at home. Chrome at work. On the phone, however, I use opera most, very light and fast to navigate within a page.

    --
    Why UNIX?
  8. Gov analytics say different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really depends on what stats you look at. US government access shows IE at 12% and Firefox at 6%. Both IE/Edge and Firefox have continued to slip over the months and I don't see Chrome doing anything but gaining users. Personally I don't see Firefox 57 as anymore then a brief blimp for users simply curious about the browser new development. IE itself shouldn't be counted anymore as a mainstream browser. Its really just a legacy browser that enterprise still relies on for older stuff. So take away IE and yes Firefox is clearly a number two browser but very much a distant two with very little hope of gaining much going forward. I look for Chrome to seriously gain even more as enterprise adopts it over Edge as their main browser. Some of that already happening.

  9. Aww shucks Microsoft by cyberman27 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft being Microsoft

  10. Stop trying too hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder when they will realise that by ramming it down W10 users throats e.g. installing by default, all the nags, difficult to remove... etc it is perceived as unwanted adware/malware.

  11. Things, nearing end of their existence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm typing this in Safari. I grown up using Netscape (starting back in 1998) - and I loved browsing with it, I was an early adopter of Mozilla suite and Phoenix browsers, I stayed with Firefox for many years but I cannot take it anymore. PaleMoon fork had a promise, but half of the sites I visit refuse to work in it (same with SeaMonkey suite), Waterfox is the same bloated and slow hog as the modern Firefox. This particular story is the last drop for me:
    https://www.bleepingcomputer.c... , which means they must be on their last legs, if they have to resort to lowly spamming of their own remaining users.
    I used to heavily use Opera in late 90-s and early 00-s as well (in addition to Netscape), and I still have its last Presto version 12.18 installed here and there.
    Safari (with uBlock) under macOS, Vivaldi and (Presto-based) Opera under MS Win and anything, but Mozilla, under GNU/Linux (including Lynx and Links for reading news) for me from now on.
    Good-bye Mozilla, you've turned into self-professed, unusable monster.

  12. IEeeee and Edge (of Death) are good for 1 thing: by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    Downloading Chrome or Firefox (or another browser) at initial OS install. That's it.

    That's the only time I ever use them, the only other time is by accident when an app bypasses the default browser setting and renders Help or Status under IE.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  13. Cyberfox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are unhappy with the new Firefox due to it not using the old addons, then Cyberfox is a good choice.

    1. Re:Cyberfox by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Pale Moon's not a bad choice, either.

      Thanks for "Cyberfox". I'll give it a try.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  14. Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just got word that Firefox will be completely banned on our network after Mozilla's recent "Looking Glass" advertisement extension injection attack. Our network admins have deemed Firefox to effectively be a form of malware after that stunt. We've been told we'll be spending the next few days removing all traces of Firefox from our network's computers.

    I don't know what this will mean for those of us who need to test our software using Firefox. Maybe we'll be able to talk the network admins into allowing us to run heavily isolated VMs with Firefox installed. But more realistically, we'll probably just stop supporting Firefox, as it's already only used by about 4% of our product's users. That puts it well below Chrome, Safari, and IE/Edge. We're even seeing more Opera users than Firefox users these days.

    1. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many people actually got this? I run the latest Firefox and never got a "Looking Glass" extension installed. Is it regional? Is it an extension people had anyway and are pissed that it was updated to include an advert? Details are fuzzy, is there any source that can explain this?

    2. Re: Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't used FF in ages, but even just one user getting an extension unexpectedly installed would be totally wrong.

    3. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had the "Experiment one Me" setting enabled, then you got experimented upon by having the Experimental plugin installed.

      If you had the "Do Not Experiment on Me" setting, then you did not get the Experimental plugin installed.

      This is similar to people who leave the "Spy on Me" setting at "Maximum Spying" in Windows 10, then gripe and complain when they are spied upon, when it is a relatively simple matter to change the "Spy on Me" setting to "Don't Ever Do That". Usually it is an indication that they are too stupid to bother looking at the settings of the software and setting those settings the way they want them to be set, and too stupid to check all the settings on a frequent basis (at least weekly) to make sure that a malicious actor (such as the vendor) has not changed the setting. Some vendors (eg Microsoft) are extremely malicious and change every setting to how they want it set at every opportunity so you have to continuously reset them to "proper" values (or write some software to do that for you on an hourly basis).

      Most other software vendors, however, at not so malicious.

    4. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know I had this until I looked at add-ons and saw it listed. In my case it was part of the Options -> Privacy and Security -> "Allow Firefox to install and run studies" check box which is now unchecked. Any corporation who bans FF because of this clearly needs better staff.

    5. Re: Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they, though? Or was it an existing extension? This is what I want to know. Smells like a smear job.

    6. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question: How did you (or anyone running 57) not know this? It was pretty prominent in the update info for FF 57.

    7. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid microsoft shill.

    8. Re:Firefox is now being banned on some networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was pretty prominent in the update info for FF 57.

      You're full of bullshit.

      Here are the Firefox 57 release notes.

      This is what I see:

      The introductory paragraphs say nothing about this extension injection or "studies".

      The "new" section says nothing about extension injection or "studies".

      The "fixed" section says nothing about extension injection or "studies".

      The "changed" section says nothing about extension injection or "studies".

      The "developer" section says nothing about extension injection or "studies".

      The "unresolved" section says nothing about extension injection or "studies".

      I don't see the release notes saying anything about this extension injection or "studies" junk at all.

      So that's why I think you're full of bullshit when you say it was "pretty prominent in the update info for FF 57".

      It's no wonder that so many people had no idea that Mozilla could infect Firefox in such a way.

      The Firefox 57 release notes don't, from what I can see, make it clear that this was supported.

  15. That's too bad, Edge is now pretty good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edge started out the gate all buggy, but has gotten pretty damn good, I'm really happy with it.

    I've been using it as my default browser this past year or so (with Opera as a fallback for it's build in ad-blocker) and it has not let me down one bit.

  16. Firefox sends user data to Google and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speed isn't the only factor to consider when choosing a web browser. Another important factor to consider is how well the browser respects the privacy of its users.

    For a long time I had been under the misconception that Firefox respected my privacy more than Chrome or other browsers. But then I actually read Firefox's privacy policy.

    It turns out that Firefox's very own privacy policy readily admits that it can share personal data with Google and other companies in a variety of ways.

    The September 28, 2017 version of it states (with emphasis added):

    Webpage and technical data to Google’s SafeBrowsing service: To help protect you from malicious downloads, Firefox sends basic information about unrecognized downloads to Google's SafeBrowsing Service, including the filename and the URL it was downloaded from.

    Location data to Google's geolocation service: Firefox always asks before determining and sharing your location with a requesting website (for example, if a map website needs your location to provide directions). To determine location, Firefox may use your operating system’s geolocation features, Wi-fi networks, cell phone towers, or IP address, and may send this data to Google's geolocation service, which has its own privacy policy.

    On iOS and Android: Firefox by default sends mobile campaign data to Adjust, our analytics vendor, which has its own privacy policy. Mobile campaign data includes a Google advertising ID, IP address, timestamp, country, language/locale, operating system, and app version.

    It can also send information to SalesForce:

    Your email address is sent to our email vendor, SalesForce Marketing Cloud

    And to some "Adjust" company:

    Firefox by default sends mobile campaign data to Adjust, our analytics vendor

    And to some "Leanplum" company:

    Firefox by default sends data about what features you use in Firefox to Leanplum, our mobile marketing vendor

    Those are just some very small excerpts from a rather long privacy policy, too. Firefox also sends a lot of information to Mozilla.

    I had no idea that Firefox collected so much information about me and my browsing habits, and I had no idea that Firefox sent this data to so many different organizations, including Google and these other companies.

    It doesn't matter that I could potentially disable some of this data collection and sending. The fact remains that even if it's disabled, the code is still present to collect and send this data, and there's always the risk of it being re-enabled without me noticing it. After all, it was only days ago that Mozilla itself remotely injected an advertising-related extension into many Firefox installations. I can't trust them to not make other changes to my Firefox installation now.

    Frankly, I don't know which browser to use at this point. I've temporarily moved to Edge because it's not Chrome, and it's not FIrefox (which as far as I'm concerned is no better than Chrome at this point, and may actually be much worse). I may end up settling on Chromium.

    1. Re:Firefox sends user data to Google and others by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Use a third party build of Firefox or Chromium... A few people produce such builds which have all the telemetry stuff either removed or disabled by default. If you're concerned about the binaries these projects provide, grab the source and build it yourself.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Firefox sends user data to Google and others by tepples · · Score: 1

      I've temporarily moved to Edge because it's not Chrome, and it's not FIrefox

      For others in a similar situation, is Edge worth $119.99 for the required Windows license?

    3. Re:Firefox sends user data to Google and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Edge is any better? You think Microsoft isn't collecting data on you?

  17. Edge can't even do basic tasks! by nctritech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've got Firefox and use it 100% of the time. I push everyone to it. Microsoft is desperate to move people to Edge and wants us to think it's faster than everything. That's fine, but even if it was the fastest browser ever, I can't even do simple things in it. I've navigated to this very page in Edge and I'll tell you what is missing when I right-click some things:

    Save page, undo close tab, view page info, view page source, inspect element, and everything I have add-ons to get. Right-click on an image and you can't view image, copy image, or copy image location, only save it or open the link under it. No bookmark link, save link, or open in private window.

    Just tried a page with auto-play video and there was no way to mute the tab like in Firefox. One major feature I love in Firefox is highlighting a non-linked URL or domain name and being able to right-click it and follow it as a link anyway, and being able to highlight and search any phrase on a page is another good one. None of that is in Edge. Edge is NOT a browser for getting things done; it's a browser for crappy tablets and people that have no idea how to internet on them. Even then, that's a bit of a stretch; way too many basic functions are missing to take it seriously. Saving web pages locally was in Netscape and IE in the mid-1990s, for god's sake!

    1. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...Edge is NOT a browser for getting things done; ...

      Correction:

      Edge is for getting Chrome or Firefox.

    2. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Microsoft screwed the pooch. People sometimes used IE for compatibility. Edge came along and was neither compatible with IE nor had many features. Since people saw that IE is being phased out for Edge, they had no reason to keep using IE and no reason to use Edge because its feature-poor. Edge could someday catch up, but people won't wait around.

      MS forgot the main reason people use MS is compatibility and familiarity. They keep losing when they try to compete on raw merit. Edge is yet another example.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I remember back in the 1990s, IBrowse would save the source URL and time of download as metadata to any files I saved locally. I always liked that feature, because when the back of my mind nagged me to go collect something else I saw, I always remembered the location as "the same place I got this other file."

    4. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only geeks and losers care about those kinds of features. View page source? That's for the involuntary celibate. Saving web pages? What? What the fuck? Talking about saving web pages in the 1990s? What the fuck does that have to do with modern websites?

      Edge is a fast browser, the lightest weight browser, and the lease resource hungry. It is a web browser for 99% of the population who aren't loser computer geeks.

      And fuck firefox. It's run by a fucking bunch of faggot social justice leftists. And firefox SUCKS BALLS. It's slow. It's unstable. And its interface is shit.

    5. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true, but Bing search used through the Edge address/search bar will not cough up a direct link to mozilla for downloading FF. Lots of other places that make you pay (at least with tracking info) for doing it, but not Mozilla itself. Interesting? Yes, if you enter www.mozilla.org it will go there, but what if you don't remember that?

      Of course, there's always corporate policy. On my work computer, it has IE11 and Chrome (Windows 7 Enterprise o/s still). FF is what I use at home - tracking is more controllable than with MS or Google products.

    6. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like they're getting married. If Edge turns the corner and can compete on features, many people will quickly switch to it.

    7. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Windows is dying as a home OS. If an Edge turn-around happens, it will be in the office, and Google has deep pockets, unlike Netscape.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have used Firefox since Netscape 1.0 thgat came on a floppy with my first Internet Access to be installed on Windows 95 (without IE).
      I recently started to use Chromium, because it has happened way to often now that plugins don't work when they do an update, including Firefox ESR.
      It gets a bit tiresome to seach for ones that work

      The two things that I miss is:
      1) No tabs in the favorites
      2) Warning about my selfs signed website at home

      Things that did not work in the latest Firefox ESR : about 7 plugins I really, really like and use. There might be alternatives now, but the last 4 times I needed to look for alternatives is not a good thing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's really shitty how they handled the Eich thing (Note: I'm NOT endorsing that site, the specific article just has some good points) but I'm not downloading "faggot social justice leftists," I'm downloading a browser, a tool to get things done. Just because a bunch of people working at a tech company have shitty beliefs doesn't mean I should avoid them entirely on principle. The same could be said about Google; the company is notoriously "left-leaning" which is really "identity politics authoritarian-leaning" if we want to be honest, yet I use YouTube and Google Calendar all the time at no cost to me, and I don't think much about the company's ideology.

      Now when these entities decide to screw me over in some way, I'll start moving away from their offerings. YouTube has screwed around enough to make me start putting my stuff on other platforms just in case YouTube continues to do dumb shit.

    10. Re:Edge can't even do basic tasks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez dude, you sound salty as hell. Maybe lay off the alt-right websites.

  18. Re:IEeeee and Edge (of Death) are good for 1 thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not even especially good that one thing.

  19. Opposite for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My older bots pretend to be Firefox. My newer bots pretend to be Chrome. It's been years since any of my bots pretended to be IE.

    Personally, I use both Firefox and Chrome on a daily basis, just for slightly different things.

  20. Bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the purpose of all these bots? Who is running them? Surely not Microsoft?

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Inertia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, Microsoft's browser benefitted from user inertia; users used IE because it was already there. But it sucked so hard that people learned that the only thing it's good for is downloading a better browser, and connecting to crappy corporate web sites that don't work with anything else. So it's now a well-ingrained habit: get a new computer, open the "e" thing and download Chrome or FF. So it actually doesn't matter if Microsoft's browser becomes awesome, because all it's used for is downloading another browser.

  23. Re:IEeeee and Edge (of Death) are good for 1 thing by luvirini · · Score: 1

    >They're not even especially good that one thing.

    They are specially bad at that single purpose on a server with the protected mode on...

  24. Edge looks like crap.. as does windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is why people don't want to use it.. the UI designer should be sacked. My guess is people wouldn't use Windows 10 if they didn't have to.

    1. Re: Edge looks like crap.. as does windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's a matter of what each user needs out of their software.

      My experience as a software developer + video editing user :

      Win10 is buggy, but more stable and more responsive than either my 2013 Macbook Pro running latest OSX and my Mint Linux laptop.

      As for browsers, I never install extensions, so this is not a problem for me. With that said, Edge runs rock solid for me.

    2. Re: Edge looks like crap.. as does windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, and far as UI design:

      I find Edge's to be alright. Its different for sure, but use it exclusively for a week and it starts to feel pretty natural.

      I probably feel about Safari the way you feel about Edge :)

    3. Re: Edge looks like crap.. as does windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Macbook Pro running latest OSX"

      There's your problem right there. Always run one version behind on Mac. Matter of fac,'I'm still using El Capitan on my 2012 MBP and it runs like a fuckkng champ.

    4. Re: Edge looks like crap.. as does windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Macbook Pro running latest OSX"

      There's your problem right there. Always run one version behind on Mac. Matter of fac,'I'm still using El Capitan on my 2012 MBP and it runs like a fuckkng champ.

      Is this similar to Microsoft's "wait until SP1" stuff?

  25. I assumed my Firefox installation was compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this very cryptic "Looking Glass" extension show up in my Firefox installation recently. It was completely unexpected, as I had not installed any extensions recently. In fact, I actually couldn't even install many of the extensions that I want to use, after having upgraded to Firefox 57, which severely broke the extension system.

    I did the only sensible thing in such a situation and assumed that my Firefox installation had been infected with malware. So I immediately uninstalled Firefox completely. I also couldn't be sure that this infection hadn't spread, so yesterday I had to completely wipe my hard drive and reinstall Linux from scratch.

    It's only now that I'm learning that Mozilla itself was behind this very suspicious extension getting installed!

    Needless to say, after this disaster of an experience I'm completely done with Firefox. Breaking nearly all of my extensions with Firefox 57 was bad enough. But this malware injection incident is 100% unacceptable.

    My personal opinion is that anyone involved with enabling this disaster should be fired and/or banned from ever working on any Mozilla software ever again. This would include any executives who even just had knowledge of this incident.

    I think that the only way Mozilla will be able to start regaining the community's trust will be to immediately fire/ban those people involved, and release a completely transparent public report detailing exactly how this disaster happened and how each and every perpetrator has been removed from whatever role they might have had at Mozilla.

  26. Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the browsers out there suck...each of them have some good points but most are just garbage...

  27. Honestly, I just don't get it by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    In the end they're all just web browsers, and all pretty much get the job done. I'll use whatever happens to be available. I'll typically install iron but won't cry myself to sleep if it isn't available. The only thing I really care about is an adblocker.

    Of course I come from the days of Mosaic and waiting for images to download on a 9600 baud modem and we were happy for it. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the advances, but in the ends its a web browser.

    1. Re:Honestly, I just don't get it by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      ...but in the ends its a web browser.

      With the Web being the gateway to information in the modern age, a Web browser is an essential utility. Saying that a Web browser is, "just a browser" is like saying that a consistent water source is, "just a source of water."

      Both of them are essential for participation in society, and controlling one or the other conveys to the owner an enormous amount of power. That is why Microsoft tried so hard to own the Web in the 90's.

    2. Re:Honestly, I just don't get it by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

      I support GP. Your answer did not explain what advantages a browser developer has over his competitors.

      I thought back then who controlled the browser controlled the definition of HTML/JS and hence had advantage in of providing tools and server software, which is where the money was. Is it still true provided better open standards exist nowadays?

      --
      4wdloop
    3. Re:Honestly, I just don't get it by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      You obviously put more value in surfing the internet, which is what 90% of it is, than I do. Not having tabs to me isn't exactly the same as suffering from dehydration.

    4. Re:Honestly, I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support GP. Your answer did not explain what advantages a browser developer has over his competitors.

      I thought back then who controlled the browser controlled the definition of HTML/JS and hence had advantage in of providing tools and server software, which is where the money was. Is it still true provided better open standards exist nowadays?

      It was Microsoft vs open standards, and the latter won, spearheaded by Mozilla in client space and by open source in server space. If IE was the only webbrowser that was being used, it would have been the de facto standard. Which MS would have exploited maximally to advance its other products/software solutions to create only ever one viable option for the vast majority of customers of any software:

      "Microsoft"

  28. Can you recommend alternate browsers? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "Use a third party build of Firefox or Chromium."

    Can you recommend 3rd party builds? I need a browser that respects my choices of add-ons.

    Pale Moon 64-bits seems more stable than Firefox 56.0.2, so I use Pale Moon.

    Waterfox sometimes brings up a message from anti-malware software I use, "Waterfox wants to act as a server." Scary.

    1. Re:Can you recommend alternate browsers? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      "Wants to act as a server" means it wants to open a port, have you checked as to *why* it might be doing this as there's probably a rational explanation (eg endpoint for a voip connection, p2p etc).

      It's unlikely that malware would attempt to open a listening port as this action is easily detectable both by the software you're using and by external port scans.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  29. Trust, once lost, is not easy to win back by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Microsoft lost a lot of trust with a lot of users over the the years with how MS handled issues with Internet Explorer. People don't trust Edge because of what happened previously, and rightly or wrongly, this has led to a lot fewer people using Edge.

    And of course, if people aren't willing to give them a chance with a new product, it's that much harder for them to win back any trust.

    I'm not necessarily saying Microsoft deserves to be given a second chance, but it seems pretty obvious to me why Edge isn't doing very well today.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  30. Can Firefox Quantum (57) be fixed, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried 57 for the first time yesterday. (On Linux, of course. Windows is so 1997).

    The new No-Script is bizarre.

    And how does one easily get rid of tabs, as the now deprecated Hide Tab Bar with One Tab extension used to do? I am one of many who absolutely loathe tabs.

    Played around with 57 for a while, and then went back to Pale Moon and Water Fox. Come on, Mozilla! Fix your broken browser, already!

    Tabs forced on the user? Seriously? Yuch!

  31. It's even worse than it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of the four windows computers I use regularly (at least once per week), Edge is still the default on three of them, but rarely actually gets used for anything. Sometimes, it does fire up from links in other programs, but then only serves as a means to copy the URL to an actual browser - Chrome, Firefox, etc.

  32. This may change quickly by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    if Mozilla pulls another Mr. Robot stunt.

    1. Re:This may change quickly by jjbenz · · Score: 1

      when did they push out that extension? I checked my work machines and home machines and didn't find the extension on any of them.

  33. Mark this as Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the new Mozilla Firefox browser rocks!

  34. Re:APK Hosts File Engine for real browser security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK. I moderated you to -1 because you are raving loony and have come up with an outlandish conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever. And the Vatican is not paying me nor am I one of their stooges (but I would say that wouldn't I! ).

  35. LOL Edge is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently for the first time in years I got a call from my mom about her not being able to get the Canadian version of ESTA website working.
    I had no clue wtf was wrong. Eventually she asks could it be that I'm using Edge? I ask why were you using edge? Oh, some update changed the default and I didn't bother resetting it. Anyway, switched to firefox (or chrome, can't remember which) and it worked.

  36. What marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are like 6% of the browser market right now.

  37. Works on all my operating systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the only one that works on all my operating systems -
    Gives me some constancy

  38. SSD vs. Browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of folks like myself are loading their windows on a SSD, and apps on a secondary regular drive.

    Chrome, Edge, and IE all insist on being loading onto the C:\ drive. Only Firefox lets you choose what drive to load on.

    That alone made me choose FF.

  39. Re: I assumed my Firefox installation was compromi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically, on upgrade you agreed to the "experiment on me" bit then paniced and reinstalled your OS when they did? It's true, computers will never be idiot proof because nature will always make a bigger idiot.

  40. Yes. Pure and simply: YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edge is annoyingly useless. IE does not present any advantages over Chrome/Firefox unless you are a Micro$lop Fan-Boi. Or perhaps someone who loves the IE/Edge home pages (msn.com). Me, I'm not. MSN.com is garbage in my opinion

  41. Re: I assumed my Firefox installation was comprom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed quantum new and never saw an experiment on me option.. and I'm the type that reads EULAs before clicking agree. There was no option for me, it wasn't on for me ... so maybe it was tied with and called something else during install.

  42. Edge is really good at one thing by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    Downloading Chrome or Firefox!

  43. Re:APK Hosts File Engine for real browser security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to think this wasn't real APK, but I have never seen him surface to comment on one of these things and since simply saying "APK" will usually result in host file spam I can't believe he hasn't seen them. What a nut, his anti-psychotics must be becoming less effective than they used to be.

  44. No script by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    FF protects the user with No script, adblock plus, https everywhere, Privacy badger, ublock, umatrix, disconnect.
    Microsoft opens your computer to getting ads.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:No script by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I 'cut the cord' almost a decade ago. I honestly don't remember any longer what it's like to watch a television show interrupted by ads.

      I feel like I'm being reminded of that old experience when I have to use IE at work, because right now I wouldn't choose to browse the web without several ad and tracking suppressors installed. I really don't understand how anyone tolerates it.

  45. Asshole webmasters playing games with user agent by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > PaleMoon fork had a promise, but half of the sites
    > I visit refuse to work in it (same with SeaMonkey suite),

    I often find in those cases that tweaking the user agent to match a "supported browser" like Firefox 57 makes it work for Pale Moon. In Pale Moon, you can do that directly in "about.config" by creating or modifying a key of type "string". E.g.

    general.useragent.override.yahoo.com of type "string" set to

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0

    This reminds me of "the old days", when some sites blocked Firefox, and isisted on IE. I got an extension that changed the user agent to a current IE, and the webpage functioned just fine in Firefox.

    I also wonder how reliable all the browser-usage sites are. I wouldn't be surprised if actual Firefox usage is lower than reported, and forks like Waterfox and Pale Moon are higher, but people have to lie about their browser to be allowed in by the website.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  46. and You'll also not going to believe me by n329619 · · Score: 1

    I use pen and paper heavily at home. calculator at work. On the phone, however, I call people the most, very easy and fast to communicate with other people.

  47. Of course. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Do More People Use Firefox Than Edge and IE Combined?

    Of course.

    No one uses Edge and IE combined; they use Edge, or they use IE; in fact, they are impossible to combine into a single browser experience.

    Note: FireFox is doing well at all because there are two popular WebGL game development platforms, whose favorite pig trick is to decide that WebGL isn't supported on anything but Firefox. If you hack the games, however, to remove the browser check, they run fine on Safari and Chrome.

    So any popularity of Firefox, such as it is, can like be blamed on sites like onemoreleve.com, and the Firefox-only WebGL propaganda therein.

  48. Re:IEeeee and Edge (of Death) are good for 1 thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you doing this on a server? Download it on a client, store it on the network. You generally shouldn't be downloading and installing client software on a server.

    Captcha: Trauma. What you cause to people who have to support servers with crappy client software installed. It's as if the machines know things...

  49. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My company primarily uses Microsoft software, but none of us programmers can stand the sight of Edge's UI.

  50. Fake complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not telling you how to rewrite your fake story, but you have certain key details wrong.

    Also we were warned for at least 6 months that extensions would break on 57.
    Besides most extension writers actually rewrote things to work again.
    If that hopelessly insecure browser extension system is still that important to you, there are forks of Firefox you can use (Firefox ESR) that will still get critical updates.

  51. Since the Mr Robot stunt - a few less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been using FireFox ever since Opera screwed their browser up.
    Just switched to Chrome after Mozilla felt the need to install crapware on my system without permission.

    That's FireFox, FireFox Klar and Thunderbird. All gone. Mozilla can fuck off.

    1. Re:Since the Mr Robot stunt - a few less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't trust chrome/google any further than I could throw it. They are the original sypware company.

  52. It's plausible by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    I don't know, of course, but I do know this: I don't know a single person, either socially or professionally, who uses Edge.

    1. Re:It's plausible by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I don't know, of course, but I do know this: I don't know a single person, either socially or professionally, who uses Edge.

      Of course not, the professional world is still on Win7 so if they use a MS browser, it will be IE. However, new hardware isn't accepting win7 and older hardware is getting too long in the tooth. Win10 is looming and dreading the retraining of the workplace proletariat in an abortion of a UI we don't want to use ourselves.

    2. Re:It's plausible by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Of course not, the professional world is still on Win7 so if they use a MS browser, it will be IE.

      Not in my office. Everyone has to use Win 10, except for a couple of machines used for testing.