Slashdot Mirror
The Battle That Could Lose Us The War
By Dave Whitinger, dave@wmkt.com (Temporary E-Mail account)
Linux is quickly becoming the operating system of the future, thanks in part to the advanced type of development that we refer to as Free Software, or Open Source, as well as the rock-solid features that are present in Linux. It is the ultimate server platform.
Linux is also enjoying success as a desktop workstation. My wife, Trish, makes the perfect example of the typical desktop user.
When we became married in August of 1996, she was a complete computer illiterate, having never even used a Windows or Unix machine. I presented her with a choice:
- I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training assistance.
- I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
A New Hope
Not knowing the difference anyway, she chose the latter, and found herself extremely happy with a rock-solid desktop.
She enjoys her Red Hat Linux 6.1 workstation. Coupled with the K Desktop Environment and various applications that I have installed for her, she's ready to go. She has her TkRat E-Mail program, Netscape Navigator, notepad text editor, licq, games, the Gimp, and a variety of other nice applications, all accessed via a friendly interface.
Finding friends in mailing lists and on-line web-based chat groups, she was happy as a clam. She would fire up her Netscape Navigator and hit any web site she wanted, and was constantly bragging to her friends about this great computer operating system that she had the privilege of using.
The Empire Strikes Back
...Until the day that Netscape Navigator, her web browser, her window to the outside world, the major purpose for using the computer, simply disappeared from her desktop while she was browsing.
Trish turned to me, confusion spread across her face, and opined, "Dave, my Netscape has simply vanished from my screen. Perhaps you have telneted in and did a kill -9 on it?"
Dave responds, "Absolutely not! Why would I do that? Let's examine the problem more closely, that the answer to this perplexing issue will reveal itself."
Upon further investigation, it turns out that Netscape apparantly did not "like" the Java code that was being incorporated into one of the websites that Trish frequents. My solution: Turn off Java.
A very important and critical issue is realized here. At this point, Trish's computer is not as powerful as all of her friends' Windows computers. If they can access certain Java-enabled pages that she cannot, she is being left out, all because she chose to use Linux.
Fade to 2 or 3 weeks later.
Trish: "Dave, this website is telling me that I cannot use their services."
Dave: "What's the URL?"
Examining the website, it turns out that it is using some special kind of plugin that is only available for Windows or Macintosh platforms. I explained to Trish that she simply will not be able to access the services on this website, until they decide to make this plugin available for Linux. A short and polite note to the webmaster later, there was nothing we could do, and the issue was closed, and Trish's computer became even less valuable to her.
Fade to 2 or 3 more weeks later.
Trish: "Dave, this website is telling me that I am using an unsupported web browser, and cannot view the pages within."
Dave: "Okay, this is starting to make me angry. The web was initially created as a completely open environment where multimedia can be viewed, regardless of your platform. It's a platform independant medium, yet here are people making platform dependant websites."
Trish: "That's great that you feel that way, but I just want to access this coupon website! All my friends say they are getting great deals, and I'm missing out! Oh, and now my netscape just froze again! Argh, (killall -9 netscape ; rm ~/.netscape/lock) again. I want a Windows computer like all my friends have."
I hung my head in shame, realizing that if she is going to be able to take full advantage of the web, she will need a Windows computer. Trish, who has used nothing but Linux for over 3 years, and is completely happy with her computer, now feels the need to switch to Windows so that she can get the same web-browsing features as her friends.
Does this sound like a big deal to you, gentle reader? If it does, than I have accomplished my mission. If it does not, read on:
In 1994, I hated Netscape Communications, Inc. The way they were embracing and extending the HTML standards was starting to become very disturbing for me. The more websites that I found that said that it uses Netscape Extensions, the more angry I became.
Then Netscape released Navigator for Linux, and everybody loved them again. They were our saviour, completing the picture of a perfect desktop for Linux users. We were all Linux users, browsing any site we wished, enjoying the satisfaction of having a great web browser for our desktop.
Then Microsoft created Internet Explorer. Then Microsoft won the "Browser War". Then webmasters began using some of the "advanced" features of Internet Explorer, shutting out Netscape users.
Problem yet? Still not convinced? Okay, let's fast forward 1 year:
Microsoft owns 99% of the web browser market share, and they control the HTTP protocol. They start adding a huge variety of features to their "Internet Information Server", their competitor to Apache, to offer advanced features to Internet Explorer clients. At this point, sites being served by Apache become useless. Then Linux becomes obsolete as a web server platform. Then Microsoft wins the war, and we're right back to square one, and proprietary technology wins again.
Return of the Jedi
On April 1st, 1998, Netscape Communications, Inc. made one final redeeming move. They released the source code to Netscape Navigator, freeing it to the Free Software community to do with as they chose.
1 and a half years later, this browser is still nowhere near completion. There is a band of rebels working feverishly on the code, trying to bring it to a usable state as quickly as possible. Plagued with problems and set-backs, Mozilla continues forward, currently at "Milestone 10". Will we see a completely usable web browser for Linux in time to save us from seeing a new monopoly for Microsoft be created?
Attention: This is the battle that could cost us the war. If we come together and push all of our might toward a Free Web Browser for Linux, we have a good chance of winning this battle. If we fail, we will lose the war. This is the issue that Microsoft wants us to overlook.
I am making a personal committment to get involved with the Mozilla project. It is the project with the most potential to become this Free Web Browser that we so desperately need. Netscape is NOT going to save us this time. Netscape has failed us, and it's time to take matters into our own hands.
If we fail, we will lose the war.
Add that to your .signature:
If we fail, we will lose the war.
And repeat it every morning to yourself:
If we fail, we will lose the war.
When you are looking over Mozilla, finding items that could use your contribution, remember:
If we fail, we will lose the war.
The truth of the matter, friends and esteemed members of the community:
If we fail, we will lose the war.
""
Hey, while they're at it, why doesn't Mozilla through a couple options in there that M$ doesn't have?
-------------------- Standard disclaimer.
this is the same as getting office released for linux. If we can't read M$Office documents perfectly will we lose. For me and for many others there is no war. I'm using linux full time and I don't care what others use.
If there is enough linux and mac users than many sites will check in those enviroments first.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
I was using netscape on a linux box for browsing, but you just can't do that unless you want to be shut out of a LOT of sites. You can't even just use netscape on windows, because IE's javascript is different from the specs, etc. So I am stuck using IE on Windows if I want to browse the web. That's just the way it goes.
abrams's advice: when eating an elephant, take one bite at a time.
The problem is that just having a good browser is not enough. The thing we really have trouble with is all the proprietary plugins that are only available under Windows (and some of them for the Mac). While there are some that are available for Linux, what we really need is some portable plugin architecture. Netscape isn't the be all and end all of browsers, but the main problem I have with Netscape under linux is the sites that it doesn't work for, and that isn't because of (the numerous) flaws in netscape. Solutions?
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
Yes, your experience with Netscape points out a shortcoming, but not in Linux. Those of use who want the functionality you are missing are free to code it.
Mozilla is a dog, but it's open, and the features are coming, I'm sure.
As for certain MS-Specific extensions that Linux doesn't run: Are you actually surprised? Linux also doesn't run VB. BeOS and AppleOS don't either.
It is not a fault of Linux or it's developers, it's a fault of Microsoft. They are 'embracing and extending, and innovating' wizz-bang toys that they keep closed. This is the crux of their monopolistic practises that the FTC is investigating.
I can easily put together a page that excludes all but IE using surfers. I can put together a website that REQUIRES a PIII processor... My doing so does not put the fault on my competition.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Dave is absolutely correct: Mozilla is probably the single most important project for the future of free software. Nearly all technology development for the next decade will be tied to the web in some way, and it's absolutely vital that web technology be kept open.
Hopefully, AOL realizes this. If Microsoft ends up controlling the web, it's only a matter of time before AOL is reduced to insignifance for most purposes. Perhaps they don't realize just how urgent it is, though. AOL needs to make the Netscape Client Engineering Group a very high priority, and get Mozilla into the AOL client as soon as possible. This alone will shift the browser market away from Microsoft in a huge way. Yes, I know about the bundling deal, and I don't think it's worth it.
We do need to focus on more than just the browser, though. While Mozilla is absolutely the most important, we still need to have a diverse array of software available, to give the Linux platform some value, both on the desktop and server side. I personally am working on a replacement for MS Exchange and hopefully will be able to hook up with the developers of some of the better Outlook clones, in order to offer a nice end-to-end integrated solution. Mozilla tie-in? Absolutely. Everything's gotta work with the Web, and I've already got a good web-based front end in place.
Heed Dave's call and spread the word. This is very important.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
It seems that the point of the article is the spread of proprietary to Microsoft extensions on the web -- Java code that will run only in IE, plug-ins that exist only for Window machines, etc.
That's all true and is a danger. However, I completely fail to see how Mozilla is going to help us here. Unless the author believes that Mozilla will win the browser war on Windows machines (dream on), it will do nothing to stop people from producing Windows-only plug-ins or writing Microsoft-specific code.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
What's tackier than a prenuptial? Writing up a SLA for your future spouse!
> When we became married in August of 1996, she was a complete computer illiterate, having never even used a
> Windows or Unix machine. I presented her with a choice:
>
> 1.I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training
> assistance.
>
> 2.I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
There's a real market opportunity there, and Mozilla and Netscape aren't there yet.
And what about all the companies with $200 surfing boxes we keep reading about, do they have some cool browser up there sleeves?
George
He makes a good point, although I see the Apache group doing a RE/RI job on the IIS 'features' as a last ditch effort befor waning into oblivion.
But I don't see all of the problem residing w/Mozilla. The problem is the Win-centric web developers. They see the 'kewl new sound/graphics service/plugin' and implement it, counting on the fact that 80% of their audience are IE users, and the remaining 20% are used to meing marginalized. Meanwhile, they're serving the content from Apache servers on *nix boxen, and looking like hypocrites.
Letter writing campaign? 'Give us Shockwave, give you DEATH'? (ex only.)
.sig: Now legally binding!
Alright people, let's start a from scratch, no sleep, code till you die, the perfect web browser coding mission let's go, let's go, let's GO!
.sig:
(BTW that story is very familiar, main reason why my parent's machine is STILL windows, despite my attempts)
My new
If fail, we will lose the war.
Excellent points made here. I think that everyone on Slashdot should take heed of these words of wisdom.
...they were right about you...
Do you think that if linux has a really sweet web browser people will switch to it? - I don't think so.
Did I switch to Linux 3 years ago because it had Netscape? -- No
I also think that because people are not going to be switching to linux because it has a cool browser, those same people are still going to use IE and get special bonuses from accessing IIS sites, and linux will never stop MS from doing this.
Your wife wants a windows box because it sounds like all she does is surf the web. So get her a windows box cuz its what will "work for her".
btw i dont see a war happening. I see the MS side serving itself, and I see the open-source side serving everyone, a little unfair yes, but we choose to do that so why are we bitching so much?
I've never understood why browsers are designed the way they are. Basically, all HTML translation capability is built in to the browser itself, meaning that when new features come out you need to download a new !@#$% browser.
Why? Browsers are, for the most part, free these days. There's no competitive advantage for that.
If the browser were _modular_, with the display engine as part of the browser, but the information on all the tags and extras as a series of plugins -- you'd be able to add support for new HTML code ON THE FLY.
That's how XML is kind of supposed to work, isn't it?
I think what we need is a plugin-centric browser... one with a basic display engine that knows how to draw/display stuff, but doesn't come with any specific information. Then plugins with that information -- plugins that can be updated on the fly, or replaced when needed -- are added, and voia! Superbrowser!
So then you get your HTML 4.0, Cascading Stylesheet, XML, and proprietary tag support whenever you need to.
Oh, and you can have a program that sets your browser identification as whatever the hell you want it to say, or even change it on the fly.
Just a thought...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Dave raises a number of excellent points; but I don't think the situation is quite as bad as he suggests.
The major plugins RealAudio, Flash are now available for Linux (albeit beta for Flash) and other major plugins WILL be ported to Linux - at least if their vendors/proponents want them to survive!
Just look at the Netcraft surveys, Apache OWNS the web server space; and Microsoft just took aim at its other foot - if I read the latest Win2k pricing announcement correctly, in addition to an NTAS license you need a $1995 "unlimited web client" license to run a big web site.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
One of the nice things about IE is its nice extension system. IMHO, ActiveX is superior to the Netscape plugin architecture. Implement something like that for Mozilla, and development of plugins may speed up.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
When did this happen? Last night while I was in one of my trademarked drunken stupors?
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
Back when I was still willing to try Barnes and Noble, I remember complaining to them about a broken shopping cart (this after I submitted a credit card number!) - their response at that time was, "well whaddya expect if you aren't using IE on Windows 95??? Go get a life, or at least a Mac!"
So much for Brenners-Lee and his vision of seamless information exchange... How long before there is a usable, portable Mozilla?
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
He makes a valid point towards the validity of Linux as a viable choice for a desktop environment. With the internet becoming completely web-centric, the evolution of the browser continues in only one corner: Microsoft. The Mozilla project is playing catchup, and will be for some time to come. By allowing MS to dictate the development of HTML and extensions, open source users (*BSD, Linux alike) are losing. I, for one, will contribute what I can to Netscape alternatives like Mozilla and Opera in the hope that with a large enough market the standards will become more open and platform independant. Of course, the browser doesn't invalidate Linux's ability to be a server platform.
I own two computers that run both Linux and Windows. My modems don't work on either computer in Linux mode. What should I care what browser I'm using on Linux, I can't even access the WEB from my Linux box.
If you're viewing the Linux issue as an ongoing war with Microsoft, then I have news for you. You've already lost the war. Microsoft already owns the desktop market. Microsoft already owns the browser market. Microsoft already owns the word processor market.
The Linux advantage is not Apache or WEB Browsers or even the WEB. The Linux advantage is that it offers a choice. As Linux gets better, the choice becomes easier. As more people move toward a Linux environment, and Linux becomes more stable, the choice gets easier. As Microsoft continues to dink with their cost structure, and Linux continues to be free, the choice gets easier.
Oh, and don't worry about those sites that offer browser specific implementations, in a world where sites make money based upon access, any company denying service because of browser based incompatabilities is shooting itself in the foot.
Beware the wood elf!!!
It never occured to me that the "proprietizing" of the Web was a direct threat to Linux. Is there anyone out there who can mount an effective response to the problem?
Tim and the W3C seem like voices in the wilderness -- why doesn't anyone listen to the guy who "invented" the Web?
Sigh...
Nick Vargish
What we need more of is science!
Linux community = Don Quixote
Netscape Browser = Kitri
Mozilla = Dulcinea
Although Quixote realizes that Kitri isn't the same as Dulcinea, and stops worrying about her, unfortunately he never finds Dulcinea. He's left to go bumbling on in his merry way.
I can't believe I just wrote this crap. This has to be the stupidest analogy I've ever seen. Oh well.
All I can suggest is:
The only way we're going to break moron webmonkeys out of using noncompatible junk is to be a large enough audience to affect their planning. If we join forces with our differently-abled brothers and sisters, perhaps we can force the issue!
And I wonder if a boycott proxy would be helpful?
Your Working Boy,
Mozilla milestone M11 is apparently due out on tuesday. The milestone M10 was pretty darn near useable - I used it for a few hours until the unfinished state of the text edit fields finally stopped me. I wouldn't be surprised if M11 is a keeper.
:-)
The source code is 20 something Meg. Grab. Download. Build. Fix.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I have had the same problems using Linux (and other unices as well like HP, SGI etc.) Netscape is rather unstable (though it is getting better), and you just don't have the plugins to do some of the cool stuff that you can with Windows.
Linux will not lose the long term war over this short term battle. This problem is largely a desktop market problem not a server market problem. I don't think that there are too many arguements against the fact that Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
Hopefully sometime in the future that will start to be less true, and then and only then should we even *expect* plugin companies to develop for Linux.
Mozilla as I understand it is progressing, and if it turns out not to be vaporware, should go a long way to giving Linux a stable browser.
In short, this is just a symptom of the larger problem of Linux not being ready for the desktop. Never fear. This will resolve itself.
Ben
Yeah, but you should have seen the End User License that she made him agree to.
--
Evan E.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Let's face it, Linux is fighting an uphill battle. Programmers have to include features in their applications that appear in MS applications, while the reverse is not true: before switching to Linux, people will complain that they'll lose features they're accustomed to in Microsoft Office, for instance. But when you tell them about the features of, say, Star Office, they'll merely consider them carefully and judge their merits.
This is why Mozilla can't strike back, for instance, by putting features of their own that are not supported by Internet Explorer. People would just hesitate to consider that technology, because they figure the majority out there wouldn't be able to use it anyway.
So what's the solution? I'm not sure. I think Linux needs to keep fighting the uphill battle until it has common ground. Then, the battle will be one of features, where the best features will win.
It is true that a very good browser for Linux would be one of these fabled "killer apps". Unfortunately, I don't think it's Mozilla. I think Linux needs more browser projects than it needs office projects right now. I don't know why energy is not being put more into creating a slew of unique browsers, then putting these resources in common.
It's doable... Linux developpers have done it or are doing it for everything else. I'm sure no one expected the quality Office suites looming on the horizon or already in place for Linux. And I figure it must be more complicated to build a complete, integrated Office suite than a Web browser, no?
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
This is cheezy, dorky alarmism. We're not going to "lose the war" because of any "battle". Just as one example, not being able to use a handful of crummy web sites that use lame plug-ins or buggy java *utterly pales* in comparison to the problem of having to be able to handle MS Office documents people send you. The fact is that we still have a long road ahead of us before we can do everything we'd like to be able to with free software. There's still a *lot* of work to be done on a lot of different fronts, but it won't make free software irrelevant if everything on the GNU task list isn't finished by next Tuesday after lunch.
(The subject says it all.)
But, if web designers are stupid enough to design pages that only render in one browser, or even worse require plug-ins, I'm not sure that Mozilla will help.
We need to keep reminding content providers that there are people using other browsers than IE on Win - there's Opera, Netscape, Mozilla and Lynx being run on Macs, BeOS boxes, and various flavors of Unix, as well as the coming PDAs with browsing capabilities. Forty lashes with a cat5 cable for any web author who depends on proprietary extensions - if you want to say something, why in the world would you restrict who can hear it??
Hopefully, the accessibility lawsuit against AOL will help inspire more broswer neutral, universally accessible web site design.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
We anxiously await the day when we can tell our prospects that Netscape is fine. But until Netscape fully supports the DOM, we can't do that. We just don't have the resources to attempt to recode all our pages to work with Netscape 4's "layers."
The web is the new platform. If there is not full support for that platform on Linux, it will not be that important that Linux has a nice windowing system and some decent desktop apps. That's the old model.
Its all about the standards. Maybe they shouldn't be called that--since nobody treats them as such.
/. was only viewable from linux...hey maybe thats an idea. just kidding.
Any thing used on the web should be open source. That's the only way it will work.
Although...If
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
... That seem to think that one aspect of Linux can cause us to lose the "war" with Windows. To most of us linux users, its not a war to begin with. I could care less if others use Linux, I know that I can use it, it takes care of my needs, and I never have to reboot my machine. If there is a Desktop war going on, I wonder who's fighting? MS certainly sees us as a threat, but we couldn't care less about them.
Upon further investigation, it turns out that Netscape apparantly did not "like" the Java code that was being incorporated into one of the websites that Trish frequents. My solution: Turn off Java.
I have yet to come upon any problems after extensive testing of Netscape with thousands of pages loaded with Java. There was an initial misconfiguration of Netscape, (actually X) wherein a necessary font for Java was not installed by default, but once installed, I haven't hit any pages with Java which were unviewable.
Then Microsoft created Internet Explorer. Then Microsoft won the "Browser War". Then webmasters began using some of the "advanced" features of Internet Explorer, shutting out Netscape users.
Again, with the ignorance. MS has hardly won the browser war. The problem with many authors of Tech articles today is that they don't understand the computer market AT ALL. They continue to naively think that just because some particular product doesn't have market share in one particular market, then it must not have market share in ANY market. The fact is that Netscape STILL dominates the Browser war for two reasons:
1) Companies use netscape on all their UNIX boxes.
2) Companies use netscape on all their Win95 boxes. IE wasn't free when the majority of companies purchased their licenses, and Netscape continues to dominate the market share in the commercial sector, which is roughly twice the size of the personal or private sector.(After all, everyone who works in virtually any white collar job has at least one machine they have at work, but not all of them have PCs at home.
If we fail, we will lose the war.
We're not at war.
If we fail, we will lose the war.
We're not at war.
If we fail, we will lose the war.
We're not at war.
If we fail, we will lose the war.
We're not at war.
When comparing M$ Windows to Linux, let us consider an analogy. You see Windows is kind of like a Trojan horse. Sure, it looks all big and impressive, and when you bring it inside the walls, it opens up and bites you in the rear end.
But linux is like a Juggernaut to the Trojan horse. Every day it gets bigger, more robust, and more difficult to stop. Eventually MS will have to bow out to Linux not because Linux will declare war on Windows, but because Windows will simply pale in comparison.
You see, one of the most important differences between Windows and Linux is that Windows is all smoke and mirrors (marketing) whereas Linux is an product that is actually well made and capable of delivering on its promises. The public will grow tired of the illusion sooner or later, its all a matter of time.
--
"A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Mozilla, once completed, should provide us with a stable and efficient web browser. But many of the problems described will remain.
There will still be Windows-only plugins, IE HTML extensions, polluted Java, etc.
The only way to solve this is to convince everyone that "cross-platform" is good, and that Microsoft is completely proprietary (read: bad) and not a "standard" the way many people like to think MS is.
Mozilla has a whole page devoted on how to get involved. Get Involved!
I, myself download the milestones and then report bugs I find. It's really easy to do, and most people could probably replace their current browser with Mozilla. (however there is no SSL support -- encryption export problems on source code).
Don't be afraid to help out for windows either. Mozilla isn't going to release on windows only -it's a cross platform development. So if you report bugs for the windows or mac (others too) versions then you're still helping out Linux as well as the rest.
Mozilla has a lot of room for helping hands, in paticular bug reporting, testing, and documentation writing. For the more technically advanced: code writing and bug fixing.
Do your part!
Joseph Elwell.
The first part: Usable is what we are waiting for. The second part (portable) is part of the project and probably won't be a problem.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
I noticed the Java problem (particularly with Javascript) a long time ago and just accepted it. We can't afford to 'accept' things as status-quo anymore. One question though, is Navigator/Mozilla even worth the effort? Would it be easier/better/faster just to start over? An open source CVS project in the same vein as the kernel itself? One command team controlling it and everybody donating patches? Just some thoughts. I'm seriously considering starting over and writing a open source browser but I'd like opinions first.
Planetes
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
we will loose the war. The real sinner isn't Microsoft, but all the poor sob's who think that copyrights (and software patents) can peacfully co-exist with GPL users. Renember GPL is a tool used to fight the wrongs doings of copyrights, not an end in itself. If we don't understnad this, problems like MS (and DVD) will always keep coming back to bite us time and time again.
We do need a way to keep certain standards on the Net from being "embraced and extended" by proprietary code. Here is a hint. If some Linux developer could taken on helping the Mozilla project and get other companies to do Linux versions of their web applications, then we may just stop this war and keep the net an open forum for speech and software standards.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Yahoo has been adding a bunch of new features that run only on the Windows and Mac (Yahoo Companion, instant messaging client). Sure, you can get the basic functions with java and html, but I suspect their Windows version has extras that are gradually becoming lockins. I guess this is the MS masterplan - make their platform indispensable, so that even if Yahoo is used on small clients, it can use WinCE or whatever. Basically, Windows everywhere, and they are gradually doing this, mainly coz the alternatives never succeeded (Java isn't hitting the mark anymore.)
/. post, the star wars ASCIImation thingie:
h tml
Will making a snappy Mozilla convince Yahoo, excite, and all the other big sites to not use Windows add-ons? I don't think so. Everybody caters to the mom-and-pop market, and unless there's a massively good alternative that will make Yahoo re-think its windows focus and follow universal standards, they will continue to do so, because they know 200 million people use Windows, and it's easier to just build on top of it. Mozilla won't make any difference unless it has an impact on the sites catering to the teenagers, home users, kids, etc. etc. It will just become a lynx like geek toy with us whining about how nobody is following standards.
I'm not sure what "power feature" alternative there is, but I doubt mozilla will spread all over to mainstream sites at this point.
BTW, for the netscape crashing on java, I too have java disabled, but an AC provided the answer on an earlier
Java under netscape in stock Redhat 6 (Score:5)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 22, @11:08AM EDT (#330)
I had the problem with netscape crashing. It seems you need to load *all* the font RPMs.
rpm -i XFree86-100dpi-fonts-3.3.3.1-49.i386.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-75dpi-fonts-3.3.3.1-49.i386.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-ISO8859-2-100dpi-fonts-1.0-8.noarch.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-ISO8859-2-75dpi-fonts-1.0-8.noarch.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-ISO8859-2-Type1-fonts-1.0-8.noarch.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-ISO8859-9-100dpi-fonts-2.1.2-9.noarch.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-ISO8859-9-75dpi-fonts-2.1.2-9.noarch.rpm
rpm -i XFree86-cyrillic-fonts-3.3.3.1-49.i386.rpm
rpm -i chkfontpath-1.4.1-1.i386.rpm
rpm -i ghostscript-fonts-5.10-3.noarch.rpm
[
hope this helps
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/05/22/1341217.s
w/m
-- I'm not a freak show, I'm a mammal. --
Is to alert Webmasters who use these extensions that you would like to take advantage of their services, but they have made a choice that prevents you from doing so. Not all will care. Some will. If enough people say this politely, they may get the picture.
I don't disagree with the author about the importance of a free browser; I just don't follow his logic on this point.
The problems do not stop there thou. VBscript is another issue altogether. I have had the same problems mentioned in this article and plain and simplely Here is my feeling:
It is one thing to require a browser that adheres to newer standards, like table in tables (HTML4.0), but to block out users and redirect them to another page cause they do not have IE adn windows is just wrong!Why in a world that is so divers in its cultures and populus, should I be FORCED to use XXX OS with YYY browser?
Truthfully, I do boycott browser specific sites.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
Before you all start blabbering about why this or that doesn't really matter and how software freedom means being able to choose the best application / platform for each Job. Here is how it works in real life.
You cannot run an Office without at least a Windows machine for simply reading MSWord docs being sent to you by "Early deployment partners" and other miscellaneous offices that have standardized on "MS Office". As is home users and servers can get around the problem by not doing business with any of those people.
If the same kind of dominance is brought to bear on web standards then the only desktop useable for browsing will be MSIE on Windows 2000/98. Once MS has the browsing client sewn up then it will be trivial to make that client incompatible with all servers but IE on Win2K.
that scenario means that all you ISPs ( I know a lot of you read Slashdot ) will have to take down whatever server you like and currently use and install Win2K with it's "browser access licenses" and whatever limitations it may have for your specific application.
So yes. The browser client is critical, simply for keeping the ground we already have and keeping the web and open platform where some sun starved geek can write a server that actually works without paying licenses for applicable patents/copyrights.
The MS Office suite filters are the next target but a secondary one since that will be to win ground that already belongs to a proprietary format. It's called leverage and we must get and use it because the other goy ( MS for now, Novel, SCO or AOL latter ) will not accept slicing up the market between "equal players" as any kind of option. They each want it all.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
I'm going to join the Mozilla project. I know that I can contribute *something* to it. If enough of us can do the same, even if each person can only contribute one line of code or one bug fix, we've got potentially *millions* of lines of code or bug fixes. Lets take advantage of our community and help out the Mozilla team. This could be a flagship product for *all* platforms.
I agree. Girlfriend, you probably could have done better.
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
Wow, I can't agree enough. Talk about a wake up call. I think I'll go to mozilla's web site and sign to do what I can to prevent this catastrophe. This is a war we cannot lose!
-- If we fail, we will lose the war
This is necessary...life, feeds on life...
Develop OPEN USEFUL web standards that work on Linux first (Since it would be the dev and ref platform). Let MS do the backporting for once, instead of us playing catchup... :) :) :)
We's give everything to the W3C for approval, and design useful ideas. MS would have play catch up coding wise, while we developed a better Linux Browsing experience...
We are starting to get the clout.. Why keep following everyone else? We should lead, and show them all how it is done!
I say, keep linux UNIX compatible, but look for ways to extend it to new areas. Beowulf is a wonderful example of this. What can we do in the web domain? What can we offer and build that would force MS to play catch up for once?
XML maybe a great tool for this purpose. Develop useful XML standards for vector graphics, etc, get them approved, and implement the nec features in browsers. The std would be open, but MS woul lack in development time...
This is the main reason that I hesitate to install Linux on non-tech people's computers. Personally, if something doesn't work, I just go to another site but most people will not tolerate that.
I notice that IIS has gained ground on Apache lately but we still have >50% of the market. With Micro$oft's new seat-based pricing on web-server authentication (starting with win2k i think?), IIS may not seem to be such an attractive choice for long.
We have more and more companies supporting the web through Linux - witness the new server side Java support from Sun for Apache - so these plugins will come for the browsers too. I'm not advocatiing apathy but on the other hand, I think that the swing towards Linux and the backlash against Micro$oft is not even close to being finished yet.
We've more users every day and if 20 million motherboards are going to have Corel Linux with them, we just may see consumer demand for interoperability reach new heights. Linux was started by geeks and nerds but it's the consumers who will make the companies take us seriously.... Soundblaster Live driver anyone?
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
In agonizing over MS's embrace & extend tactics, there is another important factor: MS Office, Windows, IE, etc. is the standard. They are the standard for no other reason than that they are on just about every consumer desktop. The important moral of this little tale, aside from the Linux/open source community's need to focus more on the complete computer-phobic neophyte's needs, is that to beat MS, Linux, Mozilla et al. must in a way *become* MS.
Put down the gun, I'm not crazy. Hear me out.
When the IBM PC came out way back when ('81), there were a ton of other companies making PCs. Most of these PCs were better and/or cheaper than the clunker IBM was hocking. But the IBM name sold so many of those "inferior" machines that soon the "better" ones were so much silicon trash. The market share that IBM was able to grab cemented its place as the standard PC right up until the present day, and it looks like it's going to stay there for awhile.
Then came Compaq, and by reverse engineering the IBM -- i.e, getting 100% compatibility -- IBM lost its preeminence as the PC hardware maker.
I think you see where I'm going with this. Since MS is the standard OS, Office is the standard productivity whatsis, etc., we have to prove we can beat them at their own game. I admit I'm not too sure what this means, or how it could be done without subverting the open standards, but one great idea is a full-fledged, kickass web browser. Mozilla might be that browser; we have to wait and see. But open source guys can leverage their stability/adaptability advantages to out-innovate MS. (I think this can be done without breaking standards. Publishing APIs, standard protocol extensions, etc., will keep someone from 0wning the market.
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
What the fuck ever.
Linux is the ultimate server platform? Serving what? How is it ultimate at that service?
Come on. Munchausen syndrome. Mac users are cut off from certain web services at some sites.
Being a Linux user does NOT require one to adopt a fatalist attitude.
I would like to see Linux leapfrog Microsoft for features in this area. Why can't someone code a really cool feature that can used with Mozilla first ("extend" apache to provide the feature). Then, write an open license so that if Microsoft wants to incorporate it, they would have to open up their entire browser (and since that's a part of the operating system, I guess they'd have to open up that as well ;-). It would need to be really cool, like internal collapsing/expanding page sections (that don't use any current techniques), or text-reading voice-synth links. Anyway the point being, what stops open-source developers from "extending" current standards and then depending on the open-source licenses to prevent MS from incorporating these features in their products? They are *not* the true innovators.
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
Anyone else here notice how much more they noticed Linux in the press once it got a mascot?
Branding might be the answer here. One solution, or at least ameliorization, might be to create a handsome certification stamp for web sites that run correctly on Linux Netscape.
That way, important sites can brag, "This site uses no wonky extensions that aren't in a blessed form of Java, JavaScript, or Shockwave" then plop down the sexy logo, and then link the sexy logo to a database of sites that are Linux Netscape-friendly.
I get pretty upset over glorified sites, myself. I don't think everyone making sites that don't work with Linux grok that they've goofed. Most peeps understand how big Linux is now that we've some stock IPO's associated with Linux that did so dern well.
Perhaps Tux riding the Mozilla character in a cowboy hat a la the "running linux" book cover? If this idea appeals to someone willing to run the site, lemme know, and I'll get a good game artist to put together a sexy logo.
I am currently developing an Intranet application which requires WYSIWYG editing (HTML) comments to be posted by the end-user. After a moderate amount of research, I found that IE has the ability to create a TEXTAREA-like IFRAME that has this unique ability, the likes of which cannot be duplicated in Netscape short of using Java (not even DHTML can do WYSIWYG editing as far as I have found.) I find myself able to provide this advanced ability only to end-users running IE. It turns my stomach.
Before i was very concerned with making websites that were only viewable in one browser or another. There wasn't that much diffentiation in terms of developing for one browser would making my life that much easier. With Cascading Style Sheets, that's all changed.
Let me warn you that I haven't upgraded my Netscape past 4.5, figuring they're all "dot" releases and will probably not have CSS support. If I'm wrong let me know ASAP!
But the fact remains that these days I develop sites primarily with IE in mind, because CSS is easier to develop, and produces much cleaner HTML, in my opinion. I don't know, or care, if MS has extended the CSS standard, but what i do know is that I can't seem to get equivilant functionality from Netscape.
Mozilla really needs to get it's act together, in terms of releasing a reference release, in my eyes. Just bolt on a usuable GUI and call it 1.0. Then start adding features and call that 1.5. Netscape is withering away because of the lack or percieved development. If we wait til Mozilla is perfect, it'll never come. The world changes, and just as Mozilla catches up to it, someone, somewhere, adds something new...
gee, as a computer illiterate, she really had no choice at all. What was she going to do, pick the Windows machine for which you had REFUSED to help her? Your heavy handed tactic forced her into Linux and now it seems to be incapable of meeting her needs. Hmmm, being forced to use a platform the constricts you...how is that different from the reason the average zealot hates Microsoft? I guess the Open in Open Source doesn't apply to your options.
If I had moderator points right now, you'd have an "insightful".
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Everyone's got their core applications they can't live without. Swtiching to Linux requires that, on a user-by-user basis, those core applications work on Linux. For me, the core is
Java
Browser
MS-doc/xls support
At this point, I'm just waiting for Java 1.2, and then I'm gone from the world of windows.
For your everyday user, the core probably goes something like this:
Browser
MS-doc/xls
games
(note, I'm not counting things like email, ftp, newsreading, webserving, code developement, cause those things are unquestionably available on Linux).
Probably the two things on virtually everyone's list is MS-doc/xls and Browser. So, absolutely, we have to have those things.
I've been using StarOffice for 2 months now. It works well, though is buggier than MS word or excel. Mostly harmless, annoying bugs only (haven't hit any show-stopper yet, the worst is that it is constantly popping up an alert box to tell me of an unsupported format - which it then goes on to support anyway).
I had no idea browser was an issue. It surprises me, since we're always hearing of more and more sites going to Linux/Apache. Shouldn't the problem of platform dependent websites be decreasing? I respect this article, but it's anecdotal. Are there any facts and statistics available?
I wish I could help with Mozilla though......
In
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
What's more important to ensure compatibility with the web-at-large: a coherent desktop or au courant browser?
I remember back to a story here that sparked long-winded arguments about the allocation of Red Hat's funding. The posts seemed to overlook the urgency of these problems; I can't do my banking on the web with my Debian box, my nephew's diff calculus plug-ins don't work nor will the Apple QT media for his classes etc.
In the cause of expediency, content developers look at audience statistics. One can develop a plug-in that work's great on Win32 platforms or complete a security assay for a handful of platform/browser combinations in much less time so long as the consequences exclude only a very small minority. It doesn't matter how fully implemented is Mozilla's JVM or it's DHTML support.
They need to be developed in tandem but most important is overall ease-of-use. With that comes a strong showing in the census and content managers can no longer ignore us. I can not simply find a new *nix friendly bank.
Windows has the fastest JVM and things run OK under IE. Linux NS crashes every two seconds or so. The Mac NS doesn't properly support JDK1.1.
No-one uses Linux because it doesn't work. Working now involves much more net access than it used to. Linux has no good browser, therefore, it doesn't work. Yes, this is rather harsh, but is unfortunately true.
On the other hand, I think that there's enough pressure for a good browser that one will materialize whether or not Mozilla solidifies. People will simply have to pay for it under Linux where it is free under Windows. (That will be rather a shock, won't it?) For instance, Opera is working on a bunch of ports for their software. I expect to be able to play $30ish for a decent Linux browser (one that doesn't require the use of kill -9 as frequently as "back") early next year.
Now if someone would just write all the plugins in Java and get a good Java implementation...we'd be set.
As someone who is working on web-based application development, I can tell you that Netscape has a long way to go before it can even compare to IE. IE is just a better browser, period. Long ago, Microsoft saw the potential for the browser-as-platform and implemented a consistent Document Object Model which adheres to many more W3C standards than any 4.x version of Netscape. CSS support in IE4 outweighs that of any Netscape 4.x as well. (Mind you, Microsoft also added a few "enhancements" here and there.) As a result, writing web-based apps is a lot less frustrating on IE than under Netscape. There is not a person on our development team who does not secretly wish we could forget about Netscape support altogether ... and these are people who bad-mouth Microsoft all the time for their shoddy products. Quite simply, Microsoft went and done good with IE.
... the developers. I haven't really seen the environment under M10, so I can't comment on how well they are doing, but the browser looks and renders significantly better than Netscape 4.x.
This is not to say that Netscape's crappiness is the only issue. Most people, as we know, don't support good web design or are using web authoring tools which may use crazy IE or Windows-only extensions. They may not even know that they are doing it, nor may they care. Add that to the fact that most plugins exist only on Windows and with closed protocols.
In my opinion, though, if Netscape could make it easier to develop products and pages for its browser by supporting a more consistent DOM and a larger breadth of CSS support, they would be one step closer to pleasing the people who matter as much as the users
Mozilla doesn't need to involve a huge overhaul either. If Netscape could start providing some decent developing tools, like a DOM browser and debugger for Netscape like the one InterDev has for IE, that would be super. Debugging code under Netscape is hell right now and involves a lot of alert() calls all over the place. Yes, they have a JavaScript debugger but it still has a long way to go.
If you reduce the number of excuses developers can give when asked to support your browser, you can make your browser easier to develop for and, in turn, much less of a pain to use.
ian.
PS. Of course, your problem could be solved if you ran IE via VMWare but that's beside the point.
ian
Wait! It's not that simple! Open source competes against secret source on a different time scale.
Open source uses accretion, and operates on geological time. Drip, drip, drip. Slow accumulation of itches scratched... Secret source uses huge amounts of manpower and operates on mtv time. Secret source will often have the edge in the short term. So when things are changing rapidly secret source will be able to compete. It's when a market settles down that open source is unstoppable.
Word processors are a mature technology; we have parity in open source word processors. HTML is a mature technology; we have HTML parity. There is a new RealPlayer twice a day; we do not have parity.
Consumers should be able to make their own choice according to their values. Tell 'em it's ol' faithful open source VS. sexy but undependable secret source. Let there be a choice.
(Don't flame me for suggesting that open source methods can't compete in a fast moving situation! They can at exceptional moments - like the present - when heavy hype has made large numbers of people available for work - but at less visible moments progress will become glacial again!)
One thing nobody's really touched on, is that the implementation of Netscape on Linux just plain sucks large planets through a millipore filter, aside from Java/plugin considerations.
My box runs Linux 90% of the time, except to boot to Windows to A) play games B) run MS "Streets & Trips 2000", and C) run Netscape's HTML composer.
Even on the latest 4.61, if you do something as elementry as insert a link, it'll bus error, for god's sake! This is just entirely too lame. And it doesn't even have Mozilla's excuses.
There have also been times when someone's accidentally swapped a {td} and a {tr} and Netcrap goes off into the weeds and dumped core. Not displaying the table I can understand, but a core dump??
Plus I like IE's ability to title and save a new bookmark where ever the hell you please, at the time you create it. That's the killer feature that turned me to the dark side. What use is tons of nicely organized folders if you end up with your "new item" folder full of hundreds of uncategorized, randomly titled links? By the (infrequent) time I go to sort 'em all out, they're useless.
Another problem, both on Linux and Windows, is the cache. Lots of times Netscape just doesn't bother to check the timestamp on a page and happily pulls old crap out of the cache. And YES, I've turned on "check every time" too.
Netscape deserves to lose the browser war.
-gc gcash@magicnet.net
When applications can say 'Yo....Orb....gimme a jpeg viewer and a Shockwave plugin....pronto', then maybe none of this will matter. Browsers are just huge, ugly, beasts that try to do way more than they should and we need to get things more modular. I realize that plugin's are modular but it's much more profitable to write an object that everyone in the OS can use rather than just one specific application.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Most people with computers (ahem, Windows) use their home PC for web browsing. True enough.
To compete in this area, Linux needs a stable, solid, full-featured browser. True as well.
But, IMHO, Linux isn't even ready to take up that challenge. A solid, stable, pretty, glitzy GUI is needed first.
The OS needs to be usable to a new user - on the same level as Windows.
Linux needs to be easy to install, easy to uninstall, able to sense hardware without the user needing to open the PC to read numbers off of chips.
Linux needs to support the latest and greatest hardware, like USB (USB2), firewire, parallel port scanners, WinModems...
Linux needs to have GAMES!
Linux needs all these things to displace Microsoft as the king of the desktop!
But is that what we want? Or do we want the best OS possible. A stable and robust system, architectured to be portable and extensible, to support new hardware easily as opposed to supporting it now. It's the fisherman maxim.
Write in cool hardware support and you play now, write in extensability for new hardware and you play for a lifetime.
Unless of course what we want to do is relegate Linux to the function of WebTV boxes, in which case all it needs to do is run a browser, a mail client, and that's about it.
Let's do this right folks. Let's design it for the future. Let's not get seduced by Microsoft's rapid upgrade cycle of feature glut.
Linux isn't there yet for the desktop. We have other, more important issues to worry about. 64bit is one. IPv6 is another. Parallel multiprocessing is another still...
Fsck conformity with M$! Let's beat them, not join them. Linux has always been about technical superiority and building knowledgable users. Dumbing Linux down will not serve it at all.
If Linux bends over for the lowest common denominator, I'm going FreeBSD, and so will all the people developing for Linux.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm webmaster since the early days when XMosaic 0.9 was the only graphical browser and observed the same alarming evolution...
Getting involved with the Mozilla Project is good, but unfortunately not all of us are programmers.
Complaining to those WebMasters who are responsible for non-portable webpages is much easier: write them an e-mail asking them politely to make it's webpages "usable" to all. Tell them that otherwise we can't read them and we wont link to them. If we don't link to them, they'll loose also readers which may use MSIE on Windows... Shop will not sell, information will not be read an banners wont be seen and clicked. I call this the leverage effect.
Be assured: after they get hundrets of complaints, they'll switch!
Better still: write to the customers who own the webpage (often it's not the webmaster who wanted this Java-thingie, but it was the customer who saw somewhere this neat moving pop-up and instructed the webmaster to insert something similar in his homepage too.
To my experience, a website which is readable by all browsers and doesn't contain ActiveX, Java, Shockwave or the like has a 200% bigger audience due to various leverage-effects.
You know David Siegel? He was(!) responsible for dazzling websites, and now has turned back to the "minimalismus". Others will soon follow.
E-Commerce and it's need to reach all people we do our interests here and drive away from proprietary solutions towards robust and standardized solutions.
No, we haven't lost yet, but we will have to work hard.
ms
"Oh, and you can have a program that sets your browser identification as whatever the hell you want it to say, or even change it on the fly."
:)
Lynx already lets you change the user agnet to whatever you want.
Getting Office released for Linux isn't in the same league. If Office for Linux is our "main" Office suite then we are in the same position Apple has been forced into. I.e. MS can pretty much kill Apple in everything but it's graphics niche whenever it wants.
Being able to read the formats in a _seperate_ free app is what will help. Make *.doc a commodity and MS can join the XML bandwagon and play our game ( open Standards ). They haven't managed to win the web server war yet so they are wary of truly open standards.
PS : Has MS EVER ported ANYTHING to an OS which can be instaled on a machine that also runs Windows ?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Corba plug ins let you view all sorts of images, PDFs, Postscipt files, as well as browse your local filesystem.
And yes, I know that it's for KDE, but KDE will run with both E and Gnome pretty compatibly.
As for the larger premise: My personal "killer app" that is keeping me in Windows is the lack of multi-head support for ATI cards. I use two to handle multimedia in and out on two monitors. I'm hoping that XFree 4.0 will allow me to use it (at that point, I'll also have to get my USB HP 895Cse printer working).
My point is that everybody has a whole different set of priorities. Not being able to see some websites is merely annoying to me. Having to reboot two or three times a day -- that's forgivable only when I trade it off for two monitors and multimedia i/o.
--
Evan E.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
What if George Washington's wife said "C'mon home George, it's cold up their in Valley Forge. We have a nice warm fire down here in Mt. Vernon".
As much as I have always been a supporter of Netscapes browser, I do realize that it's not the only choice we have. The people over at Opera are working on their linux version and though they ask for a little coin for their software, it is fastly becomming an alternative.
An this really pains me to say, but there is a version of IE for the *nix platform as well. Though I have never used it, or know anyone that has, I have seen that it does exist. I pray to the GOD's that I never have to see that on my desktop ( thats part of the reason I switched to linux ), it is still none the less an alternative as well.
And maybe with the fall of Netscape/Mozilla there in the aftermath may sprout a new browser that wont have the same problems. Who knows.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
This is all very true,currently the mozilla project has several problems: 1-FUD from the likes of CNet & ZDNet 2-Some people in The Open Source community say it's either not 'really free software' or that it's a failure. 3-The impression that Mozilla is Netscape,or that Netscape is only getting free programmers. 4-Delays. The Open Source community should participate with more code,bugs et al,currently by viewing their code changes in Bonsai* you will see 80% of the work done by Netscape programmers. -MS ---------------- * (Bonsai is Mozilla's code-changes tree-sorry couldn't come with a better def.)
Having been involved in both (a) proprietary technology for the web and (b) commercial website development at different points in my career, it seems eminently clear to me what the counterattack strategy is:
When you come across a site that is incompatible with your browser, fire off a letter to said company's VP of marketing, pointing out that the developer they chose to build their site has made technical decisions that deliberately exclude 25-80% (depending on how severe the platform-specific nature of the site is) of their potential audience. Have your friends do likewise. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks. I haven't met a marketing VP yet who has said that they want their site anything BUT 100%-cross-platform.
Microsoft will ultimately lose the battle over proprietary web goodies simply because everybody isn't using a Microsoft client. Between AOL, Apple, *nix, Netscape-on-Win, etc. the vast majority of the world isn't.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
- Drew
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
You will never win if you have to keep playing catchup to IE.
!EVER!
Remember, that's what killed every other one of MS's competitors.
Don't even get into that fight.
If you can't browse a website with Netscape or Opera or Lynx, then make sure that SOMEBODY important at that company KNOWS that.
If they still don't change, they've lost a customer or a pair of eyes or however they want to count it.
And make sure they understand THAT.
And get your wife to get a sense of perspective.
If MS can make a site that 1% of people have to switch to IE to view, and those people switch, then MS will CONTINUE to do that.
Eventually there will be 2%
Then 4%
Then 8%
Then 16%
Then 32% of the web will only be available to IE.
Then 64%
Then the entire web.
It's easier to submit than fight.
But it's better not to switch and let those lazy bastards running the sites KNOW how wrong they are and that you aren't going to submit.
If one person bitches, big deal.
If two people bitch, big deal.
If four people bitch, big deal.
Eventually, it WILL be a big deal and they will change.
Remember the Star Wars and Disney sites?
Fight back.
He has a very, very valid point here. Navigator crashing is why I still reboot to Windows so my wife can browse the web. Well, crashing and the hideously ugly fonts.
Mozilla, where are you?
Honestly, I used to use Navigator almost exclusively. Now I find that it's down to about 25% at work with IE5 the other 75%. Why? As much as I don't like Microsoft, IE5 is just better.
Navigator has fallen behind the technology curve. Whizzy features are no longer enough to satistfy the public, they need stability. The dating is over, it's time for marriage.
Mozzila may save the day, but it can't come soon enough.
Layers are a Netscape extension. The standard DOM does not have layers, and they are going away in Gecko. The DOM, unlike Netscape, lets you control any HTML in the page through the object model. You can build an entire page with Javascript code if you want. This is far more powerful than layers. Microsoft supports this fairly well, Netscape 4.x does not.
Look at the problems described: Lack of plugins, Java glitches and outright refusing connects based on browser/platform ID. NONE WOULD BE FIXED IF MOZILLA SHIPPED TODAY!
If we allow the battle to be defined in these terms we have already lost. Period.
Basically what this amounts to is "we have to be able to run the Win32 copy of IE with all the plugins or we are doomed." Nope, what we need is a hall of shame for crappy sites like those described and make outcasts out of them. For now only do it to the ones who exclude for stupid reasons, sites that could easily handle all comers but just don't give a damn because it works just fine on their Win98 boxes with IE5. The important thing is to not pick on the rare site that is actually doing something interesting with one of those plugins that really can't be done any other way yet. Then so long as they make as much of the content available as possible to non-M$ clients leave em alone while working out a platform independent way of doing it.
As for a solution to the lady who is pining away for Windows, give her a partition or VMWare box with Win98 and let em experience the horror firsthand,
Democrat delenda est
Netscape is fast approaching irrelevance. 4.6 is buggy, and its JVM is so bad that we were warned by one of providers not to use it for their new service. They reccomened 4.51 or "any 4.x or greater version of IE." It pains me to say it ... but, I bet in a complete thrashing of browsers on Windows platforms, IE 4 would be more stable and more compatible with HTML standards.
I have a pretty strong suspicion that Mozilla will be too little too late.
Opera, on the other hand, looks *much* more promising ... it's just not open source. But sometimes closed source isn't bad.
Just a thought ...
chkfontpath --add /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi
/etc/rc.d/init.d/xfs restart
Or you can update the package (which runs the command, the files are exactly the same.)
Found it on the errata page accidentally. :)
What we need is a full options set where we can choose to enable or disable certain tags, and have the architecture for implementing said tags standard and easily updatable.
;-)
Don't like ? Shut it off.
Want to implement a new tag ? Make up a little mod, and distribute it to your audience.
We could have a repository with custom tags, and the HTML 4.0 standards (obviously should be standard on the browser) and extensions. Just a thought anyway.
oh, and the tag could be standard for whining to yourself in a public place
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
The real problem isn't writing a suitable application. The real problem is the standards that people follow. As long as Microsoft can use it's monopoly power to change or extend the commom standards whenever in benefits Microsoft and hurts their competitors, linux programmers will always be playing catch up. This is the same thing IBM faced with OS/2, as soon as IBM got things working , Microsoft would make changes to stop it.
The only thing that will save open standards is the DOJ , and only if they remain steadfast in their effort to make Microsoft stop abusing it's monopoly power. However, as, I have posted before, the real problem may end up being politics.
The DOJ only got involved after Anne Bingaman was appointed head of the anti trust division of the DOJ. About one month after her appointment she contacted the FTC and told them that if they did not intend to do something about Microsoft, to send the case over to the DOJ. However, time is running out, with elections coming up next year it is possible that a new administration will remove Anne Bingaman ( that was appointed during the Clinton/Gore administration), and the DOJ will go back to the way it was, before she was appointed.
The DOJ is fighting to keep a level playing field, where everyone can compete fairly, but Microsoft will not allow that to happen if the DOJ backs off. It is no secret that Microsoft is already giving money to some politicians to cut the budget for the DOJ , certainly they also would like to have the person removed that started all this trouble and the only way is to have a new administration take over that will replace Anne Bingaman with a more Microsoft friendly department head.
You may not be a programmer, but you may be an American voter, if you feel it is important to keep the DOJ on Microsoft's case then vote to keep the same people at the DOJ.
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
Perhaps there should be some bug-stomping party, some get-together (easy if funded by AOL, slightly more difficult if not) where competent hackers all converge and fix a lot of things over a weekend or something? Something like what Loki did.
Just bolt on a usuable GUI and call it 1.0. Isn't this exactly the kind of nonsense that we've been complaining about? Vendors shipping pre-alpha products as .0 releases? Are you on crack?
it takes forever to compile it when they release new versions, and I never get the kind of features I see in the screenshots. My compilations look plain and they don't render websites anything like the old netscape did, which means there are some monstrous incompatibilities hiding in that rendering engine (though I must admit it's fast). It's been ages since mozilla started and MSIE has already been through 2 large revisions already. How does Mozilla ever hope to catch up? They don't even have plugin support? Do they support java? Puh-leeze. They'll be done by 2002 maybe. MAYBE.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Anyone using Wine for the oddball plugin that just won't work? Yep, I have vmware for the one program I need it for (QuickBooks), but don't care to use it for web browsing.
This article is dead on in many areas. Open source software is completely agenda-agnostic, so I don't agree about the war thing, but the importance of a quality, open source web browser for *nix is almost beyond estimation to many many people and corporations.
c ame-with-my-amateur-toolkit when they actually get off their butt, go to mozilla.org or mozillazine.org, and see exactly what Mozilla is, what it can do, howe it performs, and how momentous 1.0 is going to be for the entire computing world.
Consider the millions upon millions of man-hours that web browsers serve daily, and consider the incredible installed base that they serve. This mindshare-timeshare-market is far too important to leave to just Internet Explorer.
Opinions & Facts:
Internet Explorer is technically excellent, offering a completely modular design, a teriffic user interface, an extremely intuitive mail program, and partial conformance with many standards.
Linux/BSD/*nix would be blessed to recieve even a binary of IEx.
For various reasons though, this is probably not going to happen, so let's look at the most relevant Open Source response to this situation.
Netscape 4.x is going to have to be retired. It is extremely unreliable unless advanced features are disabled, and is hideously standards-uncompliant. And it's ugly.
Mozilla is certified open source.
The codebase is forkable.
Mozilla is completely modular.
Mozilla has a completely customizable UI, accessible through plaintext.
Mozilla as of late uses less memory on Linux systems than Netscape 4.x.
Mozilla is almost perfectly cross platform.
Mozilla has the backing of AOL, which is putting many many many MANY millions of dollars and developers into an open source project.
Mozilla's development process, buglists, contributor discussions are completely public.
Mozilla is free.
Mozilla is redistributable.
Mozilla is backwards-compatible with nearly all Netscape plugins.
Mozilla has a state-of-the-art layout engine.
Mozilla can be compiled at home.
Mozilla contains virtually no legacy code.
Mozilla supports virtually every relevant W3C standard, CORRECTLY, without proprietary extension.
Mozilla is themeable to an extreme.
Mozilla is space-efficient, probably under 10MB compressed for a full suite of tools and applets.
Mozilla will offer pluggable java machine support.
Mozilla will enable web-applications VASTLY more complex than those available today.
Mozilla will not lock out anyone through proprietary anything.
Mozilla is quite far along in development. Current builds (NOT M releases) are quite stable and can withstand some beating, displaying nearly all pages correctly
Mozilla is built nightly, with binaries for all major platforms available at ftp.mozilla.org
Mozilla is resource efficient and extremely flexible
Opinions:
Mozilla is technically exceptional in almost every respect
Mozilla is being built by saints who put up with the disturbing FUD that is slapped on it by those not acquainted with the development of Real Software
Mozilla is insanely important to the micro-box makers who are forced to use NS4.x to make linux web-worthy
Mozilla is incredibly sophisticated. You can't just hack out a reflowable CSSx-capable DOM-compliant browser that works on all platforms in a few weekends, despite what GPL-Kiddies may assert
Mozilla is going to get done, is going to be quite high-quality, and is going to be incorporated in to a wide variety of browsers and machine setups doing all SORTS of incredibly important things for MANY millions of people with or without the help of those outside of AOL.
Hopefully people will stop dismissing Mozilla as irrelevant, bloated, and less-sophisticated-than-my-leet-HTML-widget-that-
My Point: Don't be an ingrate, and don't presume to think that Mozilla has ANYTHING to do with Netscape the program, Netscape the company, or Netscape the concept. This is OURS and it is going to be a smashing success, irrespective of What Other Companies May Do or marketshare, or any other piddly non-technical criteria.
I am so with Dave! My wife uses our Linux system at home, and she loves it with the exception of a few missing plugins. Flash has helped bigtime, but the ones that I find she misses the most are Quicktime 4 and Shockwave (she loves http://www.candystand.com). I have suggested that she write Macromedia and Apple, and that she write the webmasters, but really she just gets annoyed with me. D'OH!
gg
gg
Dr.Whiz-Bang
I think the mnemonic web browser fits this description... but they need more coders to make it fly! www.mnemonic.org
1.I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training assistance.
... the first 3 troubleshooting steps are reboot, reboot, and reboot. *grin*
... hell, I would have given her an iMac and been done with it. (And no, I don't own a Mac.)
2.I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
For a user such as her, what is different between training for using KDE or Windows 98? Not much for her purposes of email, web browsing, and ICQ. That's the whole POINT of KDE in the first place.
Also, how hard is it to support Windows anyway
Seriously though, I understand your argument and you have some valid concerns, but I'm afraid the way you presented them makes it seem like YOU stifled her choice of OS by refusing to support both platforms at her expense. Who in their right mind WOULD choose the system that offered zero support and training when they are brand new to the technology?
How much can we blame Microsoft for forcing consumers and OEM's hands regarding OS choice when we do the same thing for no reason other than to spite them?
Give the people what will best suit their needs
There is no WAR my friend. Once in a month I run into a site that says it requires IE and most of the sites even work with Netscape, but I never even try to browse that site, because most of those sites are made by Windows Idiots for Windows Idiots. (I see them rebooting their NT stations every 1/2 hour at my work). I get the last laugh though. As far as reading a Word Document through a browser is concerned, even MS-Word running natively on a winblows machine cannot read documents created by 80% other MS-Word version.
I don't care how many nifty features IIS may tote, I will NEVER use or administer IIS. I would lose my current position rather than run IIS. I will run Apache until I die, regardless of if it's being supported/developed or not. Same goes for Netscape. I won't do business with companies that force me to use IE, because I can't get to their websites from my desk. Hell, if they think they can make me walk all the way over to the next room to use a Winblows machine to view their website - screw them. I'm no longer doing business with companies that use NT exclusively either. I don't want my credit card information going to their insecure server, and I don't want to risk their site being down when I need to buy something. My 2 cents. Mahomad
Netscape has lost this war indeed, and mostly not because Microsoft is evil and just flooded market with bad product, but because Netscape folks were not any better, they were "good" because they were against Microsoft. That's not good enough. Opera has a better chance if we all would support it. And Mozilla is far behind, with the same weak interface that is not as flaxible as IE one.
Thank's to Dave's religion, Trish is stuck without a usable web browser. Face it: Windows is more apporopriate for the average user. If you want some screwed up hackers box then use Linux, but don't make your wife suffer. I sure don't. In fact, I hope to God that my wife never knows what "kill -9" is. What a senseless waste of braincells. Go ahead and be smug. Sacrifice your PC's any usable software in the name of "bill gates sux." Enjoy your glib-c's and glib-g's and all the other crap normal people could care less about. Maybe you can attend a Team Warp rally. Microsoft and Apple rule Computerdom because they have taken the time to see what users care about not what just the nerds care about... and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
IMHO, the solution is to educate web developers and webmasters.
Their is not a single web functionality that cannot be realized in both Netscape and IE and under all popular operating systems.
The problem comes in when a particular web designer chooses to implement a feature on their site that requires a proprietary Microsoft plug-in or a proprietary Microsoft extension to Java to work.
If we can educate web designers to implement everything on their sites using open standards and protocols this issue will take care of itself.
I cannot think of a single example of a Microsoft proprietary plugin or extension to Java for which there is not a functionally equivalent open solution.
Insist that developers stick to open protocols and MS's monopoly power is severely diluted.
A long-standing problem with HTML is its non-turing-completeness. By not allowing extensions to HTML to be written in HTML (as they are in TeX), language extensions must be written in hacked-on plugin languages like Java and ActiveX (that are often proprietary), or must be written into the HTML interpreter itself. Is XML turing-complete? If so, that could resolve many of these problems.
Doctors amputate Turkish earthquake survivor's arm [This story contains video]
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
I get truly tired of having to turn off javascript everytime I come to slashdot. If I don't, netscape inevitably crashes.
Either remove the js, or fix it so browsers on open source platforms work.
My wife, Trish, makes the perfect example of the typical desktop user.
I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training assistance.
I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
Your wife does not represent the typical PC user. The typical PC user has no support options available to them at all. They call Dell, or Compaq, or head off to Sears, and buy what they see. They figure out how to adjust their wall paper, they figure out how to get on-line, because there is a "Get On The Internet" icon right there on the desktop they can select.
Rarely, do they have experienced professional technical assistance sitting on the couch watching football.
The real battle will not be fought on consumer desktops. It will be fought in corporate datacenters, where concerns are not related to a servers ability to display Macromedia fluff, but on ROI, price/performance, scalability, high availability, development tools, and ease of integration. This is where development resources need to be focused, as it is the battle where Linux can win.
Don't worry about the desktop. Microsoft owns it. Big deal. Worry about the computers that serve all that content. I wouldn't put Linux in front of a general user any more than I'd put Solaris, HP-UX, or Irix in front of them.
The web was initially created as a completely open environment where multimedia can be viewed, regardless of your platform.
This is incorrect. The web was created as a place where resources could be easily indexed and referenced. Multimedia had nothing to do with it.
-137
So who wants to vote for this month's most proprietary web pages? We'll make a nice webpage and a link to the lucky webmasters.
Scary thought: Inbox 10,000 emails with the subject, "Can't access your page."
Scarier: 10,000 emails a month until you fix it.
I suggested in a previous post (with heavy sarcasm that evidently wasn't picked up) that we play their game. Obviously, this is what we must not do- what we do need, however, are not only equivelent tools for the internet, but we need to develop original ones as well.
Open Source has wonderful potiential, and we have to play to our strengths: creativity, innovation, passion, and the moral high ground!
-------------------- Standard disclaimer.
You want to know why the DOJ is pissed? The integration is the issue. Companies who make web sites assume its all over and only test there pages with IE becasue everyone else thinks its over which relates back to win98.
/. for over a year now that linux could die if ms rules the internet.
I have been telling you guys here at
You all laughed me off or called me a troll.
Now we are in serious trouble and the only hope we have left is int he government. If the doj forces ms to throw in netscaoe then we can have hope. If ms is split we can 3 different broswers that will compete agaisnt each other and would be ported to linux
This is our only salvation. Other then that. Linux will die off in the Internet server market first, then the client.
How can you tell a windows user to switch to linux if it can't even netowrk or use the web.
Believe me, when I say network.
Ms's next stop is rewriting http so linux machines can't use or how about a tcp/ip rewrite.
SCARY SCARY STUFF!
Bill Gates will do nothing in his mad vision f*ck everyone up the ass.
We need a browser that supports the current standards. (and as little as possible of incompatible NS and MS extensions).
:)
Every site really worth viewing is viewable with just a text mode browser (+picture viewer).
I have now used MSIE4.0 for 2 months every day and feel that netscape navigator for windows is much better (faster, feels better, less bugs). If it fully supported W3 compatible HTML, I would not look at IE twice.
Unfortunatelly, netscape mail/news/... makes the browser much bigger/buggier (and slower?). I wish netscape would release the mail/news/editor as separate programs.
My home machine has W98 and Linux. I never configured dialup in W98 and don't plan to (thanks to id
> The public will grow tired of the illusion sooner or later, its all a matter of time.
Unfortunately not. Take a look at politics. If that isn't proof that people are sheep, I don't know what is.
i.e. Look at how many people fall for the "I promise to cut taxes if I get elected" line.
Getting back on topic...
The only thing we CAN do is to KEEP pushing for alternatives. [Us] Linux users are finally starting to recognize how the Mac users have felt all these past years. i.e. "I use an alternate OS [Linux,Be,etc], and we want support damit." (Except that we have stable OS in contrast to the MacOS. No Mac flames please.)
Eventually the Linux community will build up a large enough user base that simply can't be ignored. Sure, its a pain-in-the-butt now, but the more we show people the ADVANTAGES of open source, via PROPER advocacy instead of spouting off "DIE M$ DIE", the easier it will get in the future. We can fight half-baked ideas now, or wait and try to overcome against impossible odds the entrenched proprietary and defacto sub-standards that MS likes to use, in the future. The choice is ours TODAY.
i.e.
We're finally starting to see more games on Linux. We're making great progress considering 2 years ago the only commercial game we had was Quake !
The freedoom (and price) is the strongest thing the open source community can use as ammonition.
We have infinite ammo. With enough rounds, eventually what OS a person uses will become moot.
Sorry if I'm already "preaching to the choir."
Cheers
The W3 Consortium has completely lost control of defining what a browser is to Microsoft. Netscape is all but dead. I used to think that RMS's idea of developing a free full featured browser (E-scape) was a waste of time. I was wrong. The free software community needs to develop a good browser. It is more important than the desktop initiatives.
The webmasters are the ones who want to write netscape code! Its those stupid IT managers who only will bet on the winner who are causing a snowballing effect towards IE.
At work I got in trouble for using netscape!
This is bill plan all long!
IE's ECMAScript implementation is right on to the standards.. Show me something that isn't compliant :)
p.s., mozilla will not solve the problem of plugins not being available for linux.
I humbly beg to differ on a crucial supposition.
With all due respect, it is a passionate article, but I believe the author is focusing his attention on an effect as a cause, though the call for a good browser for LINUX is nonetheless an excellent suggestion.
I would argue that the situation with browser incompatibly is an effect of a prior cause. That prior cause, I would argue is that sites are being constructed which use proprietary, platform-specific "plug-ins" or proprietary extensions to Internet standards. If those did not exist, his browser dilemma would be non-existent.
If that is indeed the root cause of this situation, then I would ask, why would developers use software or features that effectively limit the viewing audience? Clearly, it is in their best interest to make their sites accessible to all. This, of course, excepts those companies and their associated entities who have a vested commercial interest in propagating their proprietary software and features such as Netscape, Sun, Microsoft, to name a few. It is akin to television and the broadcast signal: ABC would be foolish to make it impossible for owners of Sony televisions to view their programs, though Sony would have an interest in making it impossible for anyone without a Sony to view their programs. Why would the ABC site use features that "lock out" some users for all intents and purposes? There must be a compelling reason to use Netscape specific-tags knowing that it will have an adverse effect on some segment of the viewing population.
What is driving the decisions of these site creators is a need for functionality that is only available in proprietary tools. No one willingly (with the exceptions noted above) makes a decision to lock out any segment of the viewing public unless they have to. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of how much of a return they will get from the 90% of the public that can view their site versus how much of a loss they will take from the 10% of the public that cannot view their site. If it is faster to get functionality to a majority or plurality with acceptable returns, then site creators go in that direction. Certainly, it would be better to get to 100% of the public, but do you wait until the standard is released or do you calculate your acceptable loss ratio and move forward with the proprietary solution?
In effect, what is creating this situation is that proprietary software is faster to deploy and has features that the standards lack. Standards are established through a long, torturous process of negotiation between vendors and thus inherently slower to be established. You have more features available using Netscape specific tags than using "pure" W3C HTML and developers flock to the features. Netscape creates its features by fiat; W3C through negotiation. It is the same difference between unilateral action and multi-lateral action: the former is always more decisive because there is a unity of purpose which the latter lacks. Churchill noted that "a camel is a horse designed by committee" and there is truth in that. An individual (person, company, country) can always act faster than a group (of people, of companies, of countries).
Building a better browser for LINUX is not, per se, going to allow the author's wife to remove her Windows machine. It will help generate a stronger LINUX market and encourage sites to use LINUX specific proprietary software rather than or in addition to Windows specific and Mac specific software. But, someone will always be left out in the cold because the proprietary software evolves faster than standards-based software, though it may be AS/400 users, Amiga Users, or WebTV users. In the end, the problem the author identifies is not the lack of a LINUX browser, but the fundamental difference between proprietary software and standards-based software evolution.
I'm glad to see someone making noise about the inadequacy of Netscape for Linux. It is terribly unstable, buggy, slow, and full of memory leaks. Quite a shoddy product, IMO (and I'm using it now due to lack of alternative!). But there's more to the OS war. I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that Linux in its current state can wipe out Windows, even with a better browser. It's too difficult to learn and use, and it lacks other essentials that the average person uses a PC for, like a really good word processor for the masses. Word Perfect seems poorly integrated into the X environment, is resource intensive, and lacks refinement. Other alternatives are incredibly slow. IMO, good software should be compact, fast, effictive, and refined. But for anyone who thinks Mozilla is the last hope, perhaps there is another: "http://www.opera.com". It's not quite a finished product, but the Win95 versions seems promising. Anyone agree? -AC :-)
That does indeed include users with disabilities, too.
You can help contribute to this cause by avoiding specific-platform HTML code and instead coding to the HTML 4.0 spec. Create websites that can be used by everyone, not just one browser on one platform.
Accessibility == platform independence == interoperability. You didn't care about the blind being shut out yesterday, but you do care about the linux user being excluded today? Think it over carefully, my friends, and promote a web that ANYONE can use.
--Kynn
Kynn's page: http://kynn.com/
How about having redhat buyout opera and begin distributing opera under either the qpl or the bsd license. that would certainly solve our problems and it would **really** hurt Netscape and Microsoft!
Sun built a 100% Java browser, called HotJava.
Unfortunately, it sucked rocks.
This is not exaggeration, either. HotJava was actually worse than IE 1.0. And, instead of fixing it, Sun abandoned it, and told the world, "see, it is possible to build a browser in Java, now try it yourself!" And the rest of the world said "yep, it is possible to build a browser in Java, but why would I build something that sucks?"
In the end, all we got was a really bad taste in our mouths, and a dislike for desktop Java applications.
Maybe someone will try again. But I'm not holding my breath.
Another web related problem I've been dealing with on the toasters discussion group (Toasters=NetApp type hardware) is that the web designers want all the bells and whistles, and people noticed that because of said bells and whistles they can't get to the support website using LYNX because it requires cookies and javascript.
Uh, if your system is down and you're sitting at a VT terminal, all you can use is lynx. No pretty GUI matters -- gimme the damn files and info.
But in deference to this article -- the next logical extension to the problem is the web page creators. They just grab all the neato tools and use them. They don't care if they're proprietary or not, just if it looks cool. And they just use microsoft o/s because that's the default. I mean who here has seen Intel's commercial for their free web tools? You can bet that doesn't work on an Alpha or on linux...
It's an issue of symptom vs. cause. The cause is ignorance, the symptom is proprietary plugins.
This may sound a little drastic, but it's the only way I can think of to enforce open standards for web sites.
There's lots of talk in government these days about incentives to help the web live up to its (over-hyped) promise as the mall of the future. Well, why not condition some of those incentives (like the sales tax moratorium, etc.) on use of open protocols on all web pages associated with a site. New client-side standards can be used if and only if they are open source (or maybe just fully documented).
It's not really as drastic as it sounds. If the web's going to replace TV, telephones, etc. like they all claim, then why not have the government enforce the standards that are used? Imagine the chaos if TV networks had been allowed to tweak the standards.
A lot of people out there have been convinced (mostly by the Republicans since Reagan) that any government involvement in any kind of marketplace is a recipe for disaster. I don't think that's really the case. Anyway, my proposal doesn't really interfere with the creativity of the marketplace. All it insists on is that any new internet standard that is to be rewarded by government tax incentives must be available on all client platforms.
Okay. Flame away, all you government bashers.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
> other major plugins WILL be ported to > Linux - at least if their vendors/proponents > want them to survive! According to StatMarket, 94% of the web viewing public uses windows. Other/Linux only nears the 3% mark. What gain do they have porting it to linux? None, financially. Losing 6% of the web viewing public on a site due to their lack of web browsing technology isn't such a bad thing. - the sinister mister earache.
One of the less-tractible problems with Linux as a web platform is not the quality of its browsers -- it is the hordes of VC-funded companies trying desparately to push their IPO out the door before the carcass of the Internet is picked clean. They are constantly creating technologies that support only the platforms with market share (Microsoft) and don't give two squats about the runners-up.
Witness all the new sites that do fun stuff like give you a Windows-mountable networked drive, synchronize your bookmarks with a little app in the toolbar, the prolitferating Windows media forms, the fun 3D stuff... it's no longer just about the browser; it's about the platform, and it's just hard for a lot of part-time coders to keep up with glory-crazed propietary-technology-creating corporations.
IMHO we had a chance with Java, and it failed us, for purely technical reasons. Too slow, too flaky, too ugly, too late. Folks went back to MFC and the Win32 API, and accepted the 5% loss of market-share by not supporting "fringe" platforms.
The solution? Get Linux on more desktops, get it looking more like a Mac (another runner-up), and hope it works out before Microsoft starts incorporating technologies like wallets in their OS. Oops...
This is a clear indication of where we go next. We have a installed server base, and the applications are where we need to concentrate. I think that a browser that is extensible with the use of source level plugins makes it future-proof and easily customisable. Why stop here? An office suite that has the ability to be tailored to a user's requirements. MS Office is not my choice of software for scientists (being what I am) and having a decent framework for adding new graph types, analysis tools and other really useful features is what we need. Forget expanding useless features - paperclips - Wizards - I need something can can configured to do the job for me. Not for anyone else. If I want MP3 support in a browser, then add a module and run make. It's there. Software is different things to different people, but having something can be made to suit the person is going to win. Who cares if MS bring out 'standard' after 'standard'? We can support them all - and remove them again once they fail to corner the market. Proprietary software is going to hate this, because they are not going to sell a new version every year or so - but for Free Software/Open Source it makes sense. The framework is the most important part. Get that right, and you can hang virtually anything off it. All we need are a few good hackers and the desktop market is then ours too...
I think people are confused as to what free software is about. Free software is not about bringing down Microsoft, or any other company creating proprietary software, it's not about getting GNU/Linux on all computers world-wide either. The goal was and still is to create a wholly free operating system. I get the feeling that people in our community feel threatened by proprietary software and I don't understand that reasoning. I use exclusively free software on my systems (except for ssh, but that will hopefully change soon); I have no need for proprietary software, so why should I feel threatened by it?
I think we're forgetting something here. Plug-ins will start to come out in droves when the tools to develop them are mature. Not many windows coders use c/c++ without using a RAD environemnt. When Inprise releases delphi/c++ builder RAD environments for Linux the apps will start flowing including plug-ins. All in my opinion. Pat
Web Developer
IMHO, Linux isn't even ready to take up that challenge. A solid, stable, pretty, glitzy GUI is needed first.
KDE is pretty, stable, solid, glitzy GUI. Gnome is pretty and glitzy, approaching solid and stable.
The OS needs to be usable to a new user - on the same level as Windows.
Mandrake's distro with KDE is extremely easy for a Windows user to get used to, especially if you set up X to start automatically. I installed it on my machine last month after four years of using Windows.
Does anyone remember the iMac ads where the guy says "A computer person? That would be like changing my sex!" ? People use iMacs (and Windows) because they're easy to set up and use. The "Geek Factor" isn't there. If Linux is to appeal to non-geeks, it has to "dumb down" a bit.
As far as the browsers, it would be nice if there were a shockwave player for Linux. But the problem is people writing pages for specific browsers (like IE), not for the web in general. the same thing happens if you use Netscape for Windows.
The article almost hit the nail on the head. We need to get the word out about Linux, but we also need to make it easier for the average user to use
Put my clarinet beneath your bed 'till I get back in town.
I appreciate where the author is going here, but the whole war metaphor is getting old. Think in constructive terms instead.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Now I am not anti-linux mind you. I even administer our linux server at work (i'm trying to get the boss to get more. We run mostly NT around here now). It works great for what we use it for. Just trying to break thru your "Reality Distorion Feild". Linux ain't becoming the common desktop operating system.... EVER. Not saying Microsoft will always hold it, but Unix never has, and Unix never will. It will remain geeky till its dying days.
Isn't that interesting (and insulting).
My wife, Kathleen, like Trish, probably represents the typical computer user.
For years she has booted our dual boot desktop machine into Windows and I have booted into Linux.
She is so sick and tired of relentless, constant "blue screens o' death", and "this program has performed an illegal operation" messages that she has asked me for the following favor: Teach her Linux!
You see, she sees me hum along in linux crash free on the same damn hardware!
We plan to buy a more powerful box in the next month or so, anyway. So, what I'm going to do is set her up an account with the newest, slickest, most windows looking configuration of Gnome I can set up, give her a few lessons, install Applixware or Star Office (or both) as her MS Office replacement and see how it goes.
We both predict she'll like the change!
If a webmaster can't dedicate enough time to making sure that their homepage works in every browser at a satisfactory level, we should not be giving that webmaster's page the time of day.
Any plugin that isn't ported to Linux (or another OS that people use for that matter) is in violation of what the web is supposed to be.
Now, if Mozilla materialized into a good usable browser, that'd be great. However, it saddens me that people are bring the OS war to this stupid level of "I can't view MTV's web page because they require the MegaKewlKrad2000 plugin!"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Anybody read that comic? "This is not a war. This is a rescue operation."
If the Mozilla writers were smart they would drop the Netscape code base. It's obviously a piece of crap I mean when doesn't Netscape crash on any platforms? Have you ever gone a day without Netscape crashing after using it for more than 2 hours? I haven't. I switched to IE and guess what it's stable and fast. Netscape lost the browser war for a good reason, their product sucks. Windows 98 helped granted but IE is simply better. Linux's best hope for a good browser is either an Opera or IE port. You mine as well stop wasting your time with Mozilla unless your doing a rewrite.
Simply matching the functionality of Windows isn't enough. Even matching the functionality for Free (both beer and speech) isn't enough. If we want World Domination, we have to be BETTER than Windows. WAY better than Windows.
:}
In general, i think X with modern window managers and KDE or Gnome is already superior to Windows as a desktop. And of course, Linux/*BSD totally kicks Windows' ass as an underlying OS.
But Linux falls short of (or barely on par with) Windows on two fronts - web browsers, and office productivity applications. We have a mediocre, obsolescent, buggy version of Netscape (how many other apps do you kill -9 on a regular basis?), and Office imitations like StarOffice and Applix. We *can* do better than that; we *must* do better.
Work on the browser is already in place with Mozilla. They are clearly on the right track, development-wise. If only other Open Source gui apps had such a well-planned design! (are you listening, Gnome?) Don't rush them. Don't insist on some bug-ridden premature 1.0 release to satisfy some artificial market-hype deadline. They're doing it right, and doing it right takes time and patience.
I hope to see the same fundamental-rethinking wisdom applied to office productivity apps too. The tools are becoming available, in the form of XML and other standard technologies (and maybe Mozilla for a display engine!). I have ideas, but that's another story.
When the Open Source community is turning out *better* browsers and productivity tools than MS can make with all their zillions of dollars, we will win. But the battle shouldn't be with MS... it should be with ourselves, constantly challenging the community to do better.
This "war" is pointless. If your goal is simply to beat Microsoft, you need loftier goals.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Apple systems are pretty much 100% propietary.
I know Sony and Nintendo make you pay a licensing fee in order to release software for their equally propietary systems. How can they get away with that, whereas Apple cannot. Why do console progammers have to pay licensing fees to the hardware developer, but computer programmers do not? Just wondering
What really surprises me is that people who program for Windows don't have to pay a licensing fee to microsoft :P
Apache supposedly is the httpd package that runs most of the www servers on the internet. At least thats what I heard. If we don't want all this extra junk, then we don't support it. Apache is still a main part of the OSS revolution isn't it? Anyway, I guess thats what I don't understand, we still have alot of control. We can fight it, and Linux has overcome greater problems. We will stand tall in the end.
"Part of the reason Alien and Jaws work is that when you see Jaws at the end, you think, 'Holy shit, that's a big fuckin
A lot of people were shocked when the Warsaw Pact, and even the USSR itself, collapsed shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
... but I think that many MS business practices have a remarkable similarity to communist techniques. The occasional "Linux = Communism" comments look a lot like a classic Big Lie. Black is White. Deception is Truth. Smoking does not cause cancer.)
The Berlin Wall was not, in and of itself, particularly signficant. But it symbolized an incredibly incestuous mindset that could not withstand a plurality. I hasten to add that the West was nearly as myopic, but we still tolerated Marxists on college campuses; AFAIK there were no capitalists on communist college campuses.
(However, had our ultra-right wing political parties succeeded in driving out the Marxists I'm not so sure *we* could have taken exposure to communist ideas as easily.)
Back to the point, I and many of my peers have essentially thrown MS products entirely off of our networks. Some of the tools aren't bad, but they all are designed to only work well with other MS products unless MS is trying to enter a market dominated by others. On the servers, it's easy to mandate Unix/Sendmail/Oracle instead of NT/Exchange/SS, but the desktops are still a MS monopoly.
But once the dam breaks - watch out! I think the licensing terms of W2K make it clear that MS plans to leverage on the fact that MSIE is now the dominant browser, but what will happen when (not if) Fortune 500 companies switch from MS Office to Corel or another non-MS office suite? A lot of companies switched from Word Perfect to Office because the big companies started requiring Office docs, and they'll switch again if necessary.
Like the Berlin Wall, the Office empire is built on the myth of an impenetrable barrier. Once it collapses (e.g., due to a few major companies bolting the pack) you might see the entire Office empire collapse within a year because MS is as loved in offices nationswide as the old Communist party leaders were loved by the Peoples' Workers worldwide.
(P.S., before someone brings up the notorious red scare, I think free & open software is the exact opposite of the old communist mindset
Will someone please tell me at what point this became a "war" that we had to "win?" When I switched to Linux (and it wasn't all that long ago, back in the early 2.0s) Linux was an alternative, one that didn't crash twice a day, didn't self-destruct, and had a lot of free development tools (important for a fairly poor student). Recently, though, one might think that Microsoft and company were threatening our lives or something, based on the vitriol.
Currently, Windows is a better choice for my mother, say, because she would rather deal with an unreliable OS than have to remember 'su root; shutdown -h now'. That's her right to choose, and it's not a flaw in Linux that she considers it next to incomprehensible. There's no such thing as a one size fits all operating system, any more than there's a one size fits all editor (I say vi, you say emacs...).
Viewing Windows NT, say, as an 'enemy' is ludicrous. Unlike OS/2 (RIP, sweet operating system), Linux isn't all that dependent on some company's goodwill for improvements. So what if XYZ company chooses Microsoft? Their gain or loss. If you're going to stick with Netscape as the major graphical browser, you can't blame them for the product they put out. (So yes, I do support Mozilla over Opera; in my opinion, free software is always a more pragmatic choice in the long run.)
So enjoy the reason you chose Linux in the first place -- it works.
If it doesn't work in some way you want it to, make it, if you can (if you run into a proprietary software roadblock, that's a different issue. Use a free alternative.) If other people haven't used it because of that problem, they will switch over too, if they have any sense.
Bemoaning the fact that some websites don't work in Netscape on Linux won't fix anything; write to the webmaster, or simply take your business elsewhere.
And please, please don't make it sound like we've declared hostilities on Redmond; that search-and-destroy mindset is exactly what produced Microsoft in the first place.
this is a good article, and would really be insiteful, if Linux was made for everyone. lets face it, linux is a server os. it was not made to be, and for a long time will not be a desktop os. many of us use it as such, but many many more people use it as a server. they dont run out to get the latest X, they dont rush out to get the latest netscape|mozilla. they go out to get the more secure version of apache, they go out and worry about sendmail. to be blunt, mozilla is not important to linux. programs like apache, sendmail, bind, gcc, etc, these are the keystones to linux's future. who cares if microsoft rules the desktop? it is a clear fact that unix will always rule the servers!
sites I can't view with netscape aren't worth the trouble.
"hello, you are reading my comments"
This has been going on for a long time.
Check out:
http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
HiP
Sun and Netscape are partners. Remember the holy Alliance, destined to save us from the clutches of the Evil Empire? I will bring up two points:
Netscape and Java: Sun created Java. So it disgusts me to hear of problems like your wife's with Netscape and Java. (Perhaps that specific page was just coded badly??)
Netscape and Un*x: Sun makes Solaris, a groovy Un*x flavor. So, it would make sense to me that Netscape should perform at least as well on Un*x as on Windows, if not better. However, Netscape for Linux is just sad. I still use Netscape almost exclusively (nevermind the fact that IE5 is twice as fast). But I use it under Windows 98.
I will stand by Sun, but Netscape needs to get its act together. I do not agree that Mozilla's success will be Linux's savior, but Mozilla's failure will be Netscape's downfall.
--
I like to watch.
Well, the Web is the killer app of the late '90s. It's pretty much impossible to imagine selling a desktop machine w/o a decent browser.
Windows is all smoke and mirrors (marketing).
Windows might be deeply flawed but it has consistently delivered the best mixture of price, performance, and support for the 90% of machines out there that use some flavor of it. And yeah, it has a Hell of a good marketing department behind it too, as every successful product must.
Linux is an product that is actually well made and capable of delivering on its promises.
As far as I'm concerned, Linux is still more of a movement than a product. If all that energy can be properly channeled, then we may end up with something.
-cwk.
Our department briefly wrestled with the problem of different document types and finally came down from on high and said that PDF files should be used to transmit documents. That's fine for me, I can use pdflatex in Linux and gs or xpdf to view 'em (Acroread doesn't work on glibc systems yet.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The fact is that Netscape STILL dominates the Browser war for two reasons:
1) Companies use netscape on all their UNIX boxes.
2) Companies use netscape on all their Win95 boxes. IE wasn't free when the majority of companies purchased their licenses, and Netscape continues to dominate the market share in the commercial sector, which is roughly twice the size of the personal or private sector.
What a wonderful fact. Unfortunately it's incorrect. If you look at the server stats all across the web, you will see that IE is definitely winning the battle. Anyway, Communicator 4 and IE 4 were both released under equally free terms (and equally large downloads) so your argument about the cost of running either is vacuous.
Furthermore many pro-Linux people I know have been grumbling about the lack of the latest RealPlayer support and other niceties that people in the Windows world take for granted. Availability of certain plugins count almost as much these days as the browser.
You see, one of the most important differences between Windows and Linux is that Windows is all smoke and mirrors (marketing) whereas Linux is an product that is actually well made and capable of delivering on its promises. The public will grow tired of the illusion sooner or later, its all a matter of time.
This sort of Manifest-Destiny-style triumphalism is doing untold damage to the Linux community.
First of all, in case you haven't noticed, the biggest growth sector in computing is in online applications, not the desktop OS. The killer apps of the Internet revolution are websites. Nobody is going to care that Linux is robust if you can't access the next eBay through it. And there's nothing the Linux community can do to duplicate those websites because they are unique proprietary services that depend upon an irreproducible community of participants.
Second, assuming blithely that Windows is all smoke and mirrors, and will remain so forever, is simply a mistake. If you really believe that the tens of thousands of programmers at Microsoft with IQ in the 130's and up are incapable of producing a decent product, you need to re-examine your assumptions.
NT workstation, properly tuned, is very stable. Not as stable as Linux, but certainly not the crash-prone piece of snail-speed junk that some Linux advocates claim it is. Also, if you've seen the snapshots of Windows 2000's web-like desktop, you should be very afraid: I think Microsoft is closer to producing a consumer appliance "Internet OS" than anyone else out there.
The last thing the Linux community needs right now is complacency. Bill Gates got to where he is today by being utterly paranoid at every step that someone's going to crush him; we would do well to emulate him in this respect. With the DOJ trial winding down, Microsoft will soon be running without hobbles again. Linux coders need to rise to the challenge, and quickly. Dave was absolutely on target about the crucial importance of Mozilla. Mozilla may very well be the most important Linux software project ever.
~k.lee
(remove nospam for email)
What war is this? Ladies and gentlemen, the lack of a cool browser isn't going to spell the end of Linux. Please.
Why do we use Linux? We use it because it's fast, stable, configurable, flexible, etc etc... What isn't Linux? It's not (ahem!) "user friendly" if we use windows as a benchmark for that term.
The world wants that "user friendliness". They don't want stability, etc etc... they want the computer to decide. They don't want to have to think about one single thing other than "where's that cool URL?".
I don't want _that_ OS. I want the OS that I'm using now (which is any one of about 5 Unix variants). If you _really_ want to win the war, create the next version of windows, not Unix.
That will win you the war.
Make something with pretty pictures.
That will win you the war.
Leave stability behind, go for mediocre quality, but don't ask the user any questions.
That will win you the war.
Create proprietary code which is closed off from the real world so that nobody can migrate from it without extreme pain.
That will win you the war.
Spend more money are marketing than development and research. Blind the customer to the fact that it's bug ridden. Charge for each new release of the code. Make sure that previous versions become obsolete.
That will win you the war.
In short ladies and gentlemen: If you want to win this, so called 'war', then you had better stop trying to do it on the high ground. The subjects of this war don't live there. They live in the pit where they get spoon fed whatever corporate america gives them.
Can we stop with this "war" business and get back to computing? Let the general public have their mess. We know the better solution. Unix is not going away... ever. We solve the problems "they" give us, each and every time. A non-cool browser? Heh... big deal.
Cheers,
Quinn
os.system("perl -e 'print \"My first Python Script.\"'")
The hassle is when things become less open. Java is a hassle. (I find this amusing -- what happened to Java's "write once, run everywhere" philosophy?) Plugins are a hassle. The problem is the fact that people, in their never-ending quest to have their stupid whizbang bandwidth-sucking toys (sorry, I'm admittedly bitter), forget the intent of the web -- that is, if they ever knew it at all.
These people who want their toys don't care about being open. They just care about making their site look pretty. If you ask me, that's pretty silly, since these things are rarely anything more useful than a clip to accompany a news bit, and are most of the time strictly what I call them -- toys.
I know everyone hates a zealot, but if you're going to get anywhere in really winning the war over proprietary web protocols, you're going to have to do at least one of two (if not both) things:
Yes, this is very doable. I frequent a web forum, and much to some users' dismay, it relied heavily on JavaScript. With enough complains, though, it works fine in any HTML-compliant browser. It's not that difficult, either. Generally, it isn't really tough to remove the bad parts from a web page -- if it is, you seriously have to question if the site isn't due for a redesign.
So, what are you waiting for? Surely you know of a few sites which could be shown a little light. Go out there and get at them!
-- Stargazer
I disagree with this premise. I think that we're probably at a low-point for cross-platform viewability. As time goes on, users are going to be demanding cross-platform support, because they are going to be using their WebTV, Sega Dreamcast, cell phones, palm pilots, and so on. A webmaster will not be able to have the luxury of saying "screw people not on windows," because the percentage of non-windows users will continue to rise -- regardless of what happens with Linux. Web sites need traffic too badly to have long-term plans to limit traffic. Most "big" sites that do so are either doing it to a small chunk of their site (like CNN) or have large incentive to do it (MSDN not working with Netscape, for example). Of course, if Wince kills palm and the xbox kills dreamcast/playstation, and WebTV is modified to support ActiveX better...
It's Dave's time; why should he spend it supporting an OS he doesn't like? I'm sure even his wife would not want him to spend his free time on something so upleasant as fixing windows (taking out the garbage may be another issue.)
One point, though. The desktop is not the real battle ground. It is important but it's not the biggest place that Linux needs to win. Linux has to capture the middleware and server (I mean Enterprise server) market. Once that's done we will be able to make MS do what WE want. They will have to make their desktop products work or people will not be able to get anything done and they will start to switch to alturnatives like the Mac and BeOS and Linux and such.
At least that's my opinion.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
You'd pretty much have to be an idiot to rely on browser-specific functionality. Anyone with half a clue is using PHP or Java Servlets for specialized functionality.
----
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
Your understanding of the reality of the Linux community, and of Open Source projects, leaves a lot to be desired. The Linux Community isn't a corporation, no-one has the power to tell others what to work on. Heck, the Linux Community isn't even an orgainsation (as that would mean that there was some order, there's not), it's a community. What gets worked on and what doesn't is entirely up to the people doing the working.
A charactorisitc of the Linux (OS) software development model is that people work on what they currently need. If someone has a single processor system, they're not going to work on improving multiprocessor support - they're going to work on improving single processor support.
Linux is a fully functional computer operating system for almost any possible purpoise, wether it be a desktop workstation, a web server, or a node in a beowulf cluster doing major number crunching.
Linux, as an O/S, has everything it needs to be perfect desktop machine with three or four minor problems. KDE 2, XF86 4, and Mozilla will solve all of these.
The objective of the Linux movement, if you can even say it has one, is not to build a theoretical perfect O/S. It's to build a usefull, free operating system that can be used for anything that people want to use it for. If people want it to be their pretty GUI appliance desktop O/S, that's fine, and they need a webbrowser for that.
The FreeBSD project, although more centrally organized and with more specific objectives than the "Linux Community", is also a project to produce a free, usable O/S. Remember that in application space, FreeBSD and Linux are basically the same, they both run X, they both need a Window Manager, etc. An app for Linux will run on FreeBSD, and an app for FreeBSD will run on Linux.
As you're not doing central OS develpment stuff, no-one could care less wether you're using Linux or FreeBSD.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Sorry. The lyrics have been stuck in my head for days now...
Ok. So. the article is rather inflammatory, and there is some debate on this whole browser war issue. But the points that come out of it are very valid. The key one is this:
I am making a personal committment to get involved with the Mozilla project. It is the project with the most potential to become this Free Web Browser that we so desperately need. Netscape is NOT going to save us this time. Netscape has failed us, and it's time to take matters into our own hands.
To sum up: GET INVOLVED
Somehow, somewhere you have some free time. Use that time to find a project that interests you, and help out. If nothing else do it to make you r life easier in the long run.
And if you do go searching for a project, pick one of some significance. We really do not need *another* gtk ICQ program, or *another* mp3 player. We do need a better netscape. An earllier post talked about developing a competitor to Exchange. We do need better UI's.
What would happen if all the little developers hacking away on exactly the same thing, dropped those and decended in a massive horde of mad programmin' skillz upon the big projects? Mozilla would be done in no time. The desktop argument would fall by the wayside.
Is there a central website of some sort for project posting? Show up, stick your project idea on the board and get interested people? If so, why haven't I heard anything about it? The apps repositories don't count. Sticking a sentence in a slashdot comment doesn't count either. I talkin' a purely administrative site. www.lets-code.org or something.
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
"It was like trying to herd cats..." - Robert A. Heinlein
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
The team who developed Mosaic gave allowed others to embrace and extended to do the obvious things that were missing, instead of putting the software under the GPL. Both Netscape and Explorer have roots in Mosaic. The base code for Explorer came from Spyglass whom Microsoft cannibalized. Spyglass' wares were derived from Mosaic, IIRC. So you can thank the bungled handling of the Mosaic codebase for the current situation, at least partially.
The W3C guys haven't learned any lessons from all this. They still offer source code that can be embraced, extended and locked away into proprietary machine code. Here is a link to the license for libwww and other w3c freeware like the Amaya browser. Their FAQ says this: Yes, we want people to experiment with and improve our software. It can even be used in commercial software. If you make changes for the better, we encourage you to contact its authors. You may not make changes and continue to call it by a trademarked term or misrepresent the origin, capabilities, or liabilities associated with its use. You may make valid assertions, such that it is based on Amaya code, or that it is compliant with a Recommended Specification of the W3C.
They want everyone to follow the standard, yet they purvey reference implementations that can be molded into whatever proprietary shape that the Microsofts or Netscapes of this world care to dream up. It comes to reason that a reference implementation of a standard should have a license that promotes compliance and prevents it from being used as a basis for proprietary extensions.
He hit the nail right on the head. The only reason I don't use Linux is usability with the web. I used to glare at the IE user and laugh, until IE4.0 came about. I've tried my best to go about with netscape, to no avail. Until NS5.0 (yeah right because of AOL) we ARE going to be behind in the war. I love my toying machine in the basement running FreeBSD-Current, but I can't but browse the web with lynx. Lets all pray to Tux for a browser of proportions larger than IE.
'nuff said
It's Dave's time; why should he spend it supporting an OS he doesn't like? I'm sure even his wife would not want him to spend his free time on something so upleasant as fixing windows (taking out the garbage may be another issue.)
.. because it's his wife and he loves her and wants her to have the best experience she can have according to her needs, not his agenda?
... she actually lost value over time and is now in a worse position than she would have been if Windows was chosen in the first place. This doesn't HELP the linux cause ... if anything, it creates resentment in the same way those who "choose" Windows on their OEM'd PC feel when they have to reboot 5 times a day.
... many are so blinded by their own agenda and can't even see the trees, must less the forest or beyond.
Uhhh
Like I said, she gained no real value from the "choice" he forced upon her
This is the same reason people call this community elitist
Once M$ "owns" the desktop they will be able to easly leavage that position to take over the server market through the use of compelling extensions that only work with a IE and IIS combination.
I found even though netscape is not that stable that redhat sets up netscape in a unstable way. I found that the annoying times when netscape would simply crash was could be fixed by (not by turning the java off but...) updating the font path (pc world can tell you how). And then the fact that the java was not working was surprisingly fixed by installing a virtual machine (kaffe is gpl). Now netscape does not crash, still freezes a whole lot.
I found even though netscape is not that stable that redhat sets up netscape in a unstable way. I found that the annoying times when netscape would simply crash was could be fixed by (not by turning the java off but...) updating the font path (pc world can tell you how). And then the fact that the java was not working was surprisingly fixed by installing a virtual machine (kaffe is gpl). Now netscape does not crash, still freezes a whole lot.
I'm one of the webmasters for a chemistry department.
I use a plugin called Chime which embeds 3-d models of molecules into a web page. I use it a lot- it's a tremendous tool. Yes, there are Java programs which do the same thing- they have a 10th the features of Chime and are far buggier and slower.
Guess what- Mac, Windows or SGI only. My server runs Linux, but my lab machines don't and won't anytime soon, simply due to this plugin.
The real problem here is that even if Chime gets ported, there is going to be someone in Physics who has a plug-in they need. Finish that and deal with the ones that bio, math, etc want. It's even more effort than Mozilla...
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Why are you fighting a war? I just want software that doesn't suck, and so does your wife Trish. In your arrogance did you think that the competition would never improve? Did you think that computing technology would remain as it was 3 years ago?
I'm sorry that Dave chose to write about the sweet but clueless Trish, "proud" and "privileged" to be using an OS her studly geek husband blackmailed her into letting him install for her, eventually feeling "left out" because Netscape won't let her clip coupons with her friends. Could Dave could have been more patronizing if he'd tried with both hands?
The only thing I share with Trish is the XX chromosome. I'm a professional Linux bore like you -- but for work I need five or six graphical browser windows open all day long. And this afternoon I reached one too many of those (killall -9 netscape; rm ~/.netscape/lock) moments. With my head in my hands, I actually considered -- for more than a few minutes -- pitching Linux entirely and crawling to the supply cabinet for an NT disk.
I'm keeping quiet about my frustration. I'm the only Linux user along my row of cubicles, and I don't want the people around me to get the wrong idea.
But I'm afraid that Dave's illustration will give some self-important geeks-r-us Slashdot readers an equally wrong idea. Browser inadequacy isn't just a tactical issue in some mythical battle for the hearts and minds of people who want a sharp-looking GUI and dumbed-down OS. It's a problem right here on our desktops, and it needs a solution.
Fully agreed. I can relate that alot of desktops where I work would be still running OS/2 or migrating to Linux/FreeBSD if there were only an Exchange client available.
Yes, yes, MS-Exchanger server can be configured to use POP3. Our isn't, and that option won't last.
But as for missing functionality, I rather do without. Let'em see the customers they're missing. I normally browse with images off, and things have gotten alot better these days. Most images have tags, which wasn't so 2 years ago.
-- Robert
I currently use Microsoft products at work, and Linux products at home. I never knew I was at war. I never knew that there was some altruistic motive to my using linux. When I started using linux, it wasn't because it was better than MS or even had a chance to be. It was because I wanted a un*x machine at home. I now have one. I am happy. If you don't think the same way I do, oh the fuck well.
I don't feel compeled to try to convince people my product is better. I am not at war with anyone. I will not stop using linux. You can't make me, Bill can't make me, the general population can't make me.
There is no war. Ford's drive down the same roads as GM's with out firing shots at each other.
I don't know when this need ot be the majority started. I find it annoying and counter productive. Just concentrate on what you want from the OS. That is what it is all about. Who cares what they want, they can get off their ass and learn to program or use windows or whatever makes them happy.
Maybe I am just a conscientous objector.
IMHO We need some GOOD TOOLS so any of us can clearly see what is happening on the line. Then we can quickly respond to whatever new 'features' we discover from whomever. i.e.- LET'S WRITE a good GNU html, etc. oriented software protocol analyser. To find out what's happening we just monitor the conversation with whatever browser is of interest. Then it would be simple for any of us to add a smart filter, etc.in series with whatever browser we choose to use. BTW - I still prefer 'red baron' :). Isn't this what the microsoft lawsuit was supposed to be about ?
The real problem
The real problem is that the web has moved too rapidly for the standards to keep up. The web is all about design - like a good magazine it has to look AWESOME. But that's not enough. It has to be interactive like a computer program. And that's not enough - it had to be done yesterday!
HTML with all the whiz bang stuff that has been done with tables, CSS and JavaScript is still a pain to write anything decent looking in. The age of hacked up web pages that "work" in IE is upon us. There is no standard nice, way to present information.
Java was supposed to be out saviour. It was supposed to bring computer applications to the web. It was killed by poor programmers (the threading model on Windows and Unix is different), lack of compatibility and the fact that the initial AWT was a piss ugly as Motif... oh wait it was Motif. Since then Java has come a LONG way, but it is still riddled with incompatabilities and has tried so hard to do EVERYTHING that it has failed to do anything more than moderately well. Don't get me wrong, I think Java still has potential but it's not going to solve the problems the web has for a while. (The people creating Java have a much much broader, wiser vision of the future of computing - but we're not there yet. They realize the "web" is only a stepping stone, unfortuantely everyone else is still on that side of the river.)
Shockwave and other plugins offer what Java could not deliver. The latest greatest advances in content presentation. Unfortuanately these plugins have all the problems that Java attempted to avoid. On top of that they require the user to run an untrusted application on his machine - of course most users don't care about that.
SVG can help save us. SVG will bring to the web high quality precesision graphics - the stuff designers have been dreaming of ever since someone stuck them with an editor and a list of HTML tags and told them to make their Illustrator graphics fit that format. But more than this, SVG defines standards for animation and through JavaScript should be able to be fully scripted. The shear power of such functionality to replace a lot of current technology is amazing - especially as many graphics tools add SVG export.
It does have shortcomings. You also need other standards to have synchronized audio and of course RealAudio and RealVideo are what they are. But a robust, complete SVG implementation sitting in Mozilla could bring a great deal of design to the web. Combined with technologies like RDF, metainformation, etc. we should still be able to index these nasty areas.
Other obvious problems are platform fonts, DPI, screen real estate, etc. This should be dealt with by the standard, but I think that in general this is only a minor hurlde to overcome for such functionality.
I'll be checking the Mozilla pages for info on adding SVG support. I would like to help but do not have the time or energy to initiate it, but take one look at the power of PostScript or PDF, the power of CorelDraw or Adobe Illustrator and imagine bringing that to your browser.
I can't belive I let "desktop morket" get past my feeble effort at proofreading :)
Finkployd
Try the fix that is listed in the support pages of redhat's site.. (not too easy to find, had to bump and grind on Deja for a while..)
/ xxrh_know_pkg.srch2?p_id=316
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1 /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi
/ unix-4.6.html#unix
The following info can be found at: http://customer.support.redhat.com/rhoaprod/plsql
Product Description Red Hat Linux 6.0/Intel
Problem Description:
I have installed Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Netscape keeps crashing when I reach a page with java applets in it. I have also notices that some of my applications do not display fonts correctly, what is going on?
Resolution Description:
There is a problem in one of the installation RPMS that is causing many systems to not have a complete list of fontpath for X to use.
To see if this is the problem you are facing, please use the command:
chkfontpath --list
You should get output that looks like the following:
Current directories in font path:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
You should then add the 75dpi scaled font to your path list using the command:
chkfontpath --add
This should fix the problem you are seeing.. However, if problems persist, check the following as well:
http://home.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/4.6/relnotes
...many pro-Linux people I know have been grumbling about the lack of the latest RealPlayer support and other niceties that people in the Windows world take for granted
Funny you should say that. I just add/*removed* Real Player from my Windows NT machine today because it has just come to suck too much. As far as a streaming audio player goes it's not particularly impressive, and really it just takes a nice open format (mp3), sticks its own header on it, and tries to pretend it's handling some kind of amazing super-secret format you can't live without. Then, it hits you with the ads you don't want, the channels you don't want, the registration you don't want to do (complete with rectal examination) and provides no way for you to prevent it from starting when Windows starts. So: out it goes. Enough is enough. I'll stick with streaming mp3, thankyou, or use other players for ra-formatted mp3 audio. And I won't have to put up with the file not being saved to disk by default, so you have to download it all again any time you want to rewind. No thanks, Real Player, goodbye.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The key issue is standards. Web designers need to write their code to the W3C standard, and the browser makers need to support that. The problem is that anyone can go pick up an HTML for dummies book and put up anything. This is the double edged sword. I personally use IE4 on Solaris. It is faster and MUCH more stable then Netscape 4.X on the machines. I know that this is flame bait, but it is my experience.
The current netscape for linux doesn't support the DOM very well.
The thing is: WHO CARES????
Write something that does. Right now this entire debate reminds me of a negative political race. Stop talking about what each cannot do, and what is better. The rantings are what drop the credibility of all of us. Stop Ranting and write better software! There is no magic bullet, and like it or not, if it wasn't for M$ there wouldn't be as much progress into the PC industry. Thier money has helped us grow. A lot of the facilities that we use/used in college is because of them. We are NOT at war. We shouldn't want to tear anything down, just bring the bar of softare up. The industry is very Darwinistic. If there wasn't M$ there would be IBM, and they would be the "evil empire."
The internet is the ultimate free market. If you want Linux and Netscape to succeed in this market, boycott sites that use proprietary extensions. If you really care make sure that the executives involved know that you are boycotting them.
I don't think that writing the webmaster will make any difference. He answers to his boss, not to stockholders.
It never ceases to amaze me the way a certain segment of Open Source enthusiasts seem to feel that other people should do what they (that is they the enthusiasts) think is right. In my experience people do not respond well to being told what the should do. Microsoft is never going to stop breaking protocols because a bunch of people on Slashdot (who, by the way, are not their customers) keep saying they should.
A better conceived approach would be to convince business running web sites that using non-open features on their web pages is against their interests. Microsoft (and others) will be forced to be open because it will be the correct business decision.
Microsoft is always going to behave as a business, you may stop gnashing your teeth now.
-Peter
I found my fabled internet killer app a few days ago.
/.??), but that's not the point.
/.).
Well, ok, that's not true; I already had four or five (hell: what would life be without
This thing is cool, it could save me oodles of money, and best of all, unlike those previous four or five killer apps, this one was actually useful (sorry
I'm talking, of course, about dialpad.com, the site that lets you make absopositively free (wherein free is used to refer to lots and lots of always-on-top banner ads) phone calls to any damn one in the whole US. Well, so long as they don't, um, have call waiting. Or expect to be called during the hours when people like to talk on the phone.
But I digress--this idea is damn cool. For a college student with lots of close friends spread across the country (hint: me), it's a godsend.
And luckily for all the Linux users out there, it's coded in Java.
Windows-only Java.
Yep.
Now, I have to admit I'm in Win98 most of the time anyways. Still, it's damn annoying to see, and even more annoying that I emailed all my friends, including Linux/Mac users, about it, without even realizing that there was a chance they wouldn't be able to use it. I mean...it's Java! Java is platform independent!! Right?? Platform independent!!! Write Once Run Anywhere!!!!!
Grr...
Now, I'm sure you all will be happy to note that this buggy little Windows-specific Java program freezes my computer with remarkable abandon. And, they say they're working on a Mac/Linux compatible version, so that's nice. Although it does make one wonder why they decided to go with WinJava in the first place...
But the point is, this and other websites like it are very very useful. While we all know and use and love the internet for a whole lot of things that *will* continue to be platform independent, the fact is that the web is becoming a lot less markup language and a lot more code--and not just database code run back at the server, but real, interoperable client-side code. This is a good thing. And with broadband it'll only better. But unless we fight damn hard (and unless alternative OS's continue to get the attention they've recieved the past year or so), most websites are going to take the easy way out and make that code Windows code.
The sad thing is, it's all up to them. Not to take anything away from Mozilla, which I'm quite looking forward to (if mostly from an ethical standpoint; I do have to say that (when it's not running that damned buggy-ass phone applet!) IE 5 is a damned decent browser that suits my rather heavy browsing needs quite well), but the guy who wrote this article kind missed the point when he said that contributing to Mozilla is the solution.
Having the most standards compliant browser in the world isn't going to put all those windows-only websites onto poor Trish's Linux box. Standards compliance generally just refers to making sure everything on a page is displayed the way it's defined to be displayed. It's important, yes--and it *will* add some pages to Linux's repertoire, although only because Netscape 4.x has been such a piss-poor awful mess of noncompliance. (Side note: it's awful slow too.) But the important web pages--the ones that take the web from its current state as an often useful but mainly just endlessly diverting morass of fascinating and inane information, into that ever persistant thing that changes all of our lives, are going to depend on code. Having a port of the best browser in the world won't help a bit.
Now, of course it's not at all hopeless. Java is out there, and it's quite capable, and it can very easily be done correctly. But (and not that you shouldn't all go out and contribute to Mozilla; go--do that), what's going to make sure that Linux doesn't miss out on a lot of the net isn't nearly as complicated as everyone rushing out and working on Mozilla. We just need to get a bit vocal (intelligently and politely, as always) when sites on the supposedly platform independent web go Windows only. After all, we seem to get in a big huff whenever some obscure hack computer journalist writes a brilliant investigative piece that reveals that "Linux only comes in green text on black backgrounds!!"--which is the sort of thing that will have absolutely no bearing on whether Linux makes it in the long run.
The proprietization of the internet will.
Advocate.
I agree wholeheartedly that the availability of a quality browser will help attract and keep new desktop users. But I also agree with those that say that we should put some pressure on the creators of the websites that use non-standard features.
;-)
To this end, here is a template of a letter that you can use. It puts this issue in terms that a VP of Marketing, or other non-technical executive can understand, that of market restriction and ROI.
If you come across sites that aren't compatible, find the highest level executive of the offending firm and send this letter. Every bit helps.
*** Begin Letter ***
Dear {insert executive name here}:
To introduce myself, I am a user of the Internet and a potential customer.
I would like to inform you of an issue that prevents you from realizing the maximum benefit from your Internet marketing investment.
When I attempt to visit your web site, I am unable to use the site's features. This is due to portions of its design that render it incompatible with many types of software, including the very popular Netscape browser and the quickly growing Linux operating system. This incompatibility is caused by the use of non-standard, proprietary methods of web programming.
This problem limits the reach of your site and limits the potential market for your service. The result of this is your investment in the web has less overall probability of success than the more compatible sites of your competitors.
Compatibility with these types of systems becomes even more of an issue when you look at the types of people who use this combination of software.
These are the technically astute, early adopters of web based services. These are the people most likely to use the Web for the services that your site offers. This is the last group of users that you should be alienating.
Thankfully, the solution is an easy one. Please see to it that your web features are only implemented with standards based methods. Additionally, please make sure that these features are properly tested on many different combinations of operating systems and web browsers.
By ensuring 100% browser compatibility, you can realize the greatest return on your investment, and millions of previously unreachable users will be able to benefit from your site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
{insert name here}
*** end Letter ***
Good Luck!
p.s. This letter is fully GPL'd, of course!
MS Office is extremely susceptible to vandalism by the script kiddies. The thing Linux has going for it is the reality that the Melissa Virus of the Week is of no concern to us.
Wait until your boss finds out he mailed porno listings to dozens of his clients and bosses. Then talk reality to him/her.
Besides, all of those fave DOS/Win31/95/98 proggies are going byebye with W2K.
Get off your lazy butt and demo the nice group calendaring options that run under Linux and can be accessed with plain HTML3.2. Start putting together Postgresql/php databases, and mention the word free (as in meets budget).
This guy is positively depressive. I recommend a few rounds of mattress polo to cheer him up. Works for me.
What I see is so many web pages that require java, javascript, shockware, etc. that don't REALLY need it. What we have to do is start lobbying web developers to make their products available to ALL users. I suggest that we start at the top, with the big & importand web design companies like SIG/Broner Slosberg Humphrey and others, setting a corporate standard to INCLUDE everyone. Also start notifying the webmaster and OWNERS of the web site in question that you are locked out and angry about it. Think of ABC widget company finding out that because of poor website design, that 7% of visitors to their web site can not view their catalog. ABC widgets will put pressure on their web design firm, Dewey, CHeatham, and Howe, to fix the problem.
Featureful client-side scripting facilities and DHTML are quite useful for their ability to shift processing away from the server to the client, delivering a much more responsive web experience for end users.
For instance, I've seen several "HTML tree controls" that require a trip to the server every time the user expands or collapses a node. That method is ridiculously clunky; all the tree processing could and should be done on the client.
Another example of DHTML's usefulness is in repopulating forms or data reports without a page reload. I use a proxy applet, WDDX, and DHTML to allow the client to make various database queries without reloading the page.
In another situation, I built a DHTML tabbed dialog control that greatly improved the user's experience by increasing the compactness of the displayed information.
I used IE5's XML/XSL capabilities to generated this site's menus, then displayed them in a popup fashion using DHTML.
In all of these instances I was only able to take advantage of DHTML because I was developing an intranet site where browser choice (IE5) is dictated.
I am definitely not a Microsoft fan, but the truth is that both IE4 and IE5 are far superior to Navigator 4.x, especially in the area of DHTML support.
I would love to see a cross-platform browser emerge that supports the latest technologies in a standard manner, but I am not optimistic.
> A lot of people were shocked when the Warsaw Pact, and even the USSR itself, collapsed shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
;-)
...
;-)
I agree. You sort of paraphrased my point.
a) At the time, people thought that Germany would NEVER be re-united.
b) It didn't happen over night. It took time.
Sounds like exactly the same situtation Linux was in a year ago.
a) Nobody thought Linux would ever over-take MS. (We still have a ways to go obviously)
b) We're making progressing.
> Back to the point, I and many of my peers have essentially thrown MS products entirely off of our networks.
Yeap. I use Linux and BeOS at home
And we use Groupwise at work.
> Some of the tools aren't bad, but they all are designed to only work well with other MS products unless MS is trying to enter a market dominated by others. On the servers, it's easy to mandate Unix/Sendmail/Oracle instead of NT/Exchange/SS, but the desktops are still a MS monopoly.
For now. Things will really start looking great once KDE and GNOME both release ver 2.
> I think free & open software is the exact opposite of the old communist mindset
Yeah, I don't buy the Linux = Communism analogy either. I believe a better analogy would be: Communism (proprietary software) places power in the government (developer), not the people (users), which liberty (GPL) does.
Ok, enough politics and Linux
Cheers
Moderators: How the heck can my post be labeled as 'flamebait' when I mention 'no flames' I thought I posted a civil and thought-provoking article?? (ok the crack about politics and sheep was off-topic, but still)
Why Not Get Microsoft Where It Will Really Hurt
Convince the IETF http://www.ietf.org/ to require anyone who implements the latest HTML specs to Open-Source their browser software.
The HTML 4.0 specs exist as an open standard. Why not make any company that wishes to implement it have to open-source their software?
I'm not sure how to do this. Any ideas if it's feasible?
Plus (I'm on a Mac), does anyone know what Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/) is capable of doing? It runs on Linux-PC. Sounds like it is an HTML 4.0 compliant browser environment. Is it?
Please explain how ActiveX is superior to Netscape's plugin system. While you're at it, you should try to explain exactly why a system so insecure it can cause web pages to totally erase your hard drive could possibly be superior to one which did everything else ActiveX could do as concerns Web pages, but didn't let pages erase your drives.
What amuses me is that when something goes wrong on her machine, her instant assumption is that her hard-up-for-a-laugh husband has started killing off her processes. :)
try this: Tim
the other link worked, it just took you to the front page, instead of directly to the Tim page. heh.
Sad but true. Slashdot is one of the worst.
Then give us a better metaphor. Seriously.
I agree that we have to take out sights off "beating" Microsoft. However, like it or not, they do a pretty good job at defining what people's expectations are for computers. It's not because they have such great products, or because their vision of the future is all that insightful, but simply because so many people are used to the features they have laid out on the table.
Call it mind share or attention or corporate backing or VAR support or plugins, Microsoft and Microsoft-only applications are sucking up resources. Do you want to have plugins that work for all the Web pages you surf? How many times have you tried to get at multi-media content only to find that "You appear to be using an unsupported platform"? It bugs the TAR out of me when I can't use QuickTime or RealAudio (it core dumps on my sound card) for anything.
If you want your Linux computer to be as useful to you as a Windows computer, you are going to have to fight for resources. Call it a war or call it something else - it's going to take a significant amount of effort on our part to make it a success.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
While I may disagree with some of the details
of the strategic analysis, I know exactly what
the author is talking about. I use linux at
work and prefer it, but the browser is not just
a tool to view the outside world, it's a tool
for communicating and collaborating in the work
environment. To keep up, I have to struggle and
tweak my workstation and that's not what I'm paid
to do.
Unfortunately, it's not the browser weakness, it's
the Java weakness that sinks interaction with
the web. This in turn affects ecommerce which is
just as important in business to business transactions as consumer ones.
If the desktop role is important, browsing has
to become solid, reliable and fluent.
DK
In the midst of all these opinions, I would like to voice mine.
Mozilla is a very important project. Important for the future of Linux, important for the future of the web. The reason does not have to do so much with Microsoft or Netscape, but with different theories of web design and browser design.
Ever since Netscape 2.0, both Netscape and Microsoft have been attempting to increase the popularity of their browsers by adding "features" to the HTML standard that only they supported. Some of these "features" have made HTML better and more powerful. Some (like IE's MARQUEE tag) have been laughably bad. But in any case, they have tried, with each new browser release, to expand the HTML standard, and by doing so to draw people to their product.
I think that it is a mistake to look at Netscape as the good guy in this regard. Netscape has tried just as hard as Microsoft to add proprietary extentions to the HTML standard.
In recent years, the W3C (an independent, nonprofit organization) has developed a clear set of standards for HTML, and these standards include the abilities to use powerful features like Style Sheets and Dynamic HTML. Netscape's support for these standards has been downright awful. Not only have they failed to fully implement CSS1 and other standards, but they have once again tried to add their own extentions (namely the downright evil LAYER tag) to the HTML standard.
In fact, the reason that many developers (myself included) prefer to target IE for our intranet applications is that HTML has come a long way in the last 2 years, and Netscape has not kept up. IE is, in fact, much closer to the W3C standard then Netscape. When Netscape fails to render a page correctly, then, should the blame be put on the designer, who wrote proper HTML but didn't check it on Netscape, or the browser, which fails to render the code correctly? I'm not talking about Flash, Plug-ins, or VB here folks: I'm talking about javascript, CSS, and DHTML, all of which are based on open, independant standards.
However, Mozilla represents a paradigm shift for web browsers. Mozilla's cheif goal, as a pure web browser, is to be completely compliant with all the current standards. They are not trying to extend HTML, but conform to it. This is as it should be. HTML is a language. It has standards. Why is it acceptable for a web browser to not meet these standards? For example, (and I may be getting myself into trouble here because I'm not a C programmer) how would you feel about a C compiler that failed to compile common commands correctly? I don't think you'd tolerate it, even if the compiler included support for exiting new commands that were not part of the C language.
By making a completely standards based, cross platform browser, Mozilla is paving the way for the future of the internet, when it won't matter what O/S or browser anybody is using. Any page written according to the HTML standard will display correctly on anybody's machine, and we'll all be able to communicate.
So, to wrap up:
Mozilla is important for Linux. Why? Because the future is coming where having a standards compliant browser will be the most important feature in defining a "real" desktop operating system. Yes, even more important than a good Office package. The web is only going to grow in importance, and with mozilla Linux users - as well as users of Mac, Windows, and other operating systems - will be able to enjoy its full potential.
Thanks for letting me put my two cents in.
-Abe
Back when I was still willing to try Barnes and Noble, I remember complaining to them about a broken shopping cart (this after I submitted a credit card number!) - their response at that time was, "well whaddya expect if you aren't using IE on Windows 95??? Go get a life, or at least a Mac!"
If this was the response of their webmaster, you need to talk to the webmaster's boss.
ANY company employee that tells a customer that needs to be fired.
Do you think that any conventional business owner would refuse to sell something to you because you drove up in the wrong brand of car? ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is no different.
If any customer support person had that attitude with me, I'd go over their head so fast they'd have tread marks on their scalp.
You need to talk to someone who's income has a direct correlation to the amount of money you spend; some bonehead support rep who is paid by the hour isn't it - go higher.
The problem is not the browsers. The problem is the standards. By which I mean their are none. Microsoft implements java and java-script different than Netscape. Netscape didn't fail us, Microsoft hi-jacked Java and Java-script. And Sun took them to court for it. I've been reading alittle more about XML and that is a step in the right direction but it does nothing for Java or JavaScript. The Web is a multiple platform data exchange...web masters and programmers (I am one) need to treat it this way. We need to say damn it Microsoft (or anyone using some closed system), I refuse to use this. Code your web pages so that all people can read them. I guess I should qualify this maybe you don't want to support very old browsers or maybe you do. But don't use CLOSED standards. Only use open published standards so that anyone can write a browser able to understand it. My pages look just as good on linux with netscape (where I write them) as they do on Windows with Netscape or IE.
Remove the spam reference to email
More and more sites use flash, but even that works for me (linux NN under FreeBSD). I use hushmail sometimes, and the java works fine, and is far from trivial.
So if there's a problem, it's incompetent programmers or sites designed by people who really don't understand the web at all. Watch out for them. They are the types who say "Can't you adjust the kerning in this text?" and then look at you suspiciously when you say no. It would be funny if it didn't happen so often.
Solution: Complain to the webmaster! Complain to customer service! Complain to the ad sales department!
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Most of the responders appear to have missed Dave's point. We can win this war by extending Mozilla to have the same capabilities as IE. Sure, M$ can continue to add non-standard extensions, but most webmasters will refuse to adopt them, because the installed base of older IE Browsers won't be able to use them. This gives the Mozilla team time to catch up with any new extension before it is widely adopted. About plugins: This is slightly less critical than inherent browser features since there is a minor disencentive among the clueless majority to running IE plugins. However, we really do need the same plugin capability that is available on IE. There are two approaches: 1) reverse engineer and re-implement each plugin. 2) attempt to build an IE plugin interface into Mozilla. This is obviously a major project, but should not be dismissed out of hand. The plugin interface spec must already be available, so the mozilla code can meet it from the browser side, and Wine can be used to provide the rest of the operating environment the plugin expects.
My school district has a dozen Linux computers. In a year it will probably have 100 Linux computers (especially with the new pricing of Win2k). Web designers need to understand that if they want maximum exposure, they need to design their pages for the greatest number of browsers. This nonsense of "looks best with netscape 4.6" or "best viewed under Windows Explorer" is insane.
On the bright side, the recent litigation launched by advocates of the blind for access to web pages may be good news for the Linux community as well. Lynx is already a popular tool for the blind and I've noticed that even some Linux web sites do not provide alternate links to their graphical ones.
In short, in the scramble to have the whizziest web page, the designers have lost track of the fact that there are others who deserve access.
However, even though I have to kill -9 Netscape a couple times a week, I still prefer it to a Win platform.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
HTML 4.0 and CSS compliant and extensible. And it runs of Linux. Has anyone tried this out yet?
It seems to be a browser and authoring tool both on the client side.
http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
Too late. Netscape is down to 20% (see statmarket.com). It's much less of a player on some sites. I'm a professional web app developer, and I can tell you that more and more clients are quitting support for Netscape. In fact, I just got done writing one web app that uses client-side VBScript. Netscape is fairly dead in the professional world. Linux needs a browser that follows the IE standards, if they want to survive. Otherwise, I can write a web app that will run on EVERY PLATFORM except for Linux. Linux will quickly die.
I think the best way to save this is to have the new netscape come out with new features that IE is not capable of. It'd have to be something really cool so that webmasters would want to use it. You release the new netscape for both linux and windows and windows and linux users will be going crazy for it so they can see the great new features that have been implement on sites. You'd wanna give the information on implementing this to a few very popular sites before the release date so that customers can use it as soon as its released.
The best would be to get aol to implement it into it's service, there we have a few million automatic netscape users, a group so large that webmasters can't afford to ignore them.
Just my thoughts,
-Al-
Ok. I've seen Milestone 10... it downloads... it renders. Can we get a web-widget?
I'm sure that the folks at kde could use a libMozilla for kfm. (Which works pretty well on its own, btw.)
What about gmozilla for Gnome based on the Mozilla library?
I believe that great things are going on over there, but when are we going to get the goods? Any goods? Why go for the whole sh-bang (email, www, nntp) when the functionality that people out here are bleeding for is not that vast in scope. It would also allow existing developers in other areas to contribute to the project... and produce PRODUCT.
-- waiting for libMozilla.so
If we lose the broser, we will lose the war.
OK here is the plan, Plan A). The boys from netscape keep cranking out Mozilla... Plan B). The boys from Wine keep working on Wine, with help from Corel etc. If we cant beat 'em, join 'em... Plan C). The people from Vmware will continue to improve upon vmware. If we still can't beat 'em we will pay money to join 'em. I figure that we have alot of tricks up our sleeves still. So the world is not as bleak as some people say. However the longer we wait, the more dearlt we will pay....
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
MS, Netscape, MS, Mozilla. those are not the only available graphical web browsers, that can support what is available. Now, granted, that they are the most known, have the most features, etc. Those two browsers, actually the CAUSE of major problems. Reason: Marketing. They let themselves be known through very good marketing, that they are the two best browsers on the market today, regardless of Open source, Binary only, etc. Because of that, people have been making sites, only suited to those browsers (best viewed with yadda yadda). That is why there is the Anybrowser Campaign. The WWW is supposed to be for the internet, regardless of platform. Now, the two big Browser companies, have made it the complete opposite. So, What do you do? How do you get what you really want out of the Net, with a browser, that is trully in the medium?
Answer: Opera. The graphical brower, for the Anybrowser Campaign. All the functionality of Netscape, and IE, without the bloatedness of those things that "only those bowsers would accept", in a high end, robust, non-crashing browser. I've been using it for the past 3 months, and am enjoying it. Development for this, for Linux is still in the works, and is just about ready for a full Beta test. This is also being ported to Be (beta already available), OS/2, EPOC, Amiga, and other OSes. Take a look at it, at www.opera.com. You won't regret it.
BL.
HTML 4.0 and CSS compliant and extensible. And it runs on Linux. Has anyone tried this out yet?
It seems to be a browser and authoring tool both on the client side.
http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
Linux has a clear path to a good market share of servers, I think. It's excellent as a small to medium server, and it just makes too good economic sense not to be successful there. It's server capabilities are also increasing rapidly, especially from the commercial contributions to the kernel. So I think Linux can be an extremely successful OS while failing to achieve total desktop domination. But if Microsoft controls HTML it won't happen.
Unix always has, and probably always will, be the most appealing to students, developers, engineers, and scientists. Take it apart and figure out creative new ways to put it back together people. MS Windows on the other hand tends to appeal to businessmen and home users. Don't tell me about it -- I'm not paying to learn -- just make sure it works and all I have to do is push a button people. These are quite different sets of people and *both* have a realistic notion of their needs. The problem is in either Microsoft or *nix trying to force one set to use the other's tools. That should only be possible by satisfying the underlying needs responsible for both choices -- something neither side is fearfully close to yet. All I want to see is that those 10-30% who prefer Unix have that choice, and are supported with drivers and plug-ins.
Now, I'm optimistic about the Linux desktop personally. I'd always been a DOS command line person anyway, GUIs have never impressed me as powerful enough, though I use them. For my money, if you develop software, the best place to do it is in something Unix-like like Linux. It's entertainment like the web and games that keep me dual booting.
The bit about lack of plug-ins is true, but hardly fair. That sort of thing follows desktop success, it doesn't precede it. As hardware drivers are now coming thru for Linux, so I expect plug-ins to follow.
Having to recompile your apps? Well, yes, *having* to can be a pain. Being *able* to can also be wonderful when it's needed. No worse than having to re-install Windows occasionally surely.
The desktop standards thing is interesting. Do you remember when Norton and another company sold competing Win3.1 desktops? Much the same problem there. Microsoft of course settled it in their usual fashion by driving both, though superior, out of the market. I think in the Unix world, there is a possibility for something better, choice of desktop with full interoperability of apps. It won't come soon, but it will NEVER happen with Windows, Microsoft wouldn't permit it.
The issue is one of critical mass. There have to be enough Linux desktop users to make supporting them commercially attractive, or at least feasible. I would like to see fixes for the problems you mention, but I have to agree with the article, the lack of a browser is the most critical problem at the moment on the desktop front and standards front both. It's not an attempt to dominate the desktop, it's an attempt to maintain a foothold in the client space for fear of being embrace-and-extended out of the server space.
>>We follow the standards. Microsoft make their own.
Standards have to be created before they can be followed.
We need to go further than that. Let's make the next Mozilla 100% compatible with the latest version of W3C's HTML standards, and add in all the features that makes IE a superior browser in Windows.
Once that's completed, we need to take it one step further. Let's start creating our own standards. Let MS, for ONCE, have to catch up to US. Why must it constantly be the other way around? Don't add in features that will ultimately break the browser, but add in features that will enhance & elevate Netscape / Mozilla's functionality above IE's. WE need to be the innovators, the creators of dreams, those who create the magic that entices the average Joe to use our software.
Good guys don't always follow the rules, and vice versa: those who follow the rules aren't always the good guys. Remember that before you make that kind of statement again.
Even nominally having a browser isn't really enough if netscape really thinks that we aren't important. Here is a script that I wrote a few days ago.
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# Netscape really does suck. This is a script
# that runs netscape and when it crashes it
# runs it again
while( 1 )
{
$rc = 0xffff & system( "netscape" );
if( $rc == 0 )
{
exit 0;
}
# It crashed.
unlink "~/.netscape/lock";
system( "date >>~/.netscape-sucks" );
}
See the results (so far).
would everyone please stop freaking out.... we seem to forget that microsoft is completely screwing themselves over by their new pricing system. what oem in their right mind wants to pay $200 for the base os? and what lan admin is actually friggin stupid enough to pay $2000 for a 2000 pc lan when all they wanna do is run an intranet web site?
I wish the hackers here would stop bashing Java and realize its the only thing that can save their ass. MS WILL WIN IF WE DON'T SUPPORT PLATFORM INDEPENDENCE THROUGH JAVA!
FWIW, the JavaScript Slashdot uses crashes Navigator 4.06 on FreeBSD 2.stable.
Okay, I have a strange idea that might be able to work.
I noted that recently on Freshmeat, someone had found a way to play VQF files in Linux, even though the only way to get a player is through getting a Windows .dll from the Sony website.
How? By using Wine. The plug-in talks to Wine, and Wine passes that on to the (Linux) music player.
Could the same principle be employed for this? The API for Netscape plug-ins is surely basically the same between Linux and Windows. Give the plug-ins a way to be able to execute in the new environment, they may never know the difference.
I suspect this could be achieved through a "wrapper" plug-in, that translates between the plug-in for Windows and the browser for Linux. Even sound could be made to work, I suspect - Wine is pretty nifty these days.
The main problem I see is that only x86 Linux people will benefit from this. This is, however, the main market, and at least having it there will help "win the battle".
If only I knew more about Wine... or had some spare time :) - I'd really like to see this happen, if at all possible.
Comments?
so why is it you Linux fanatics all think you're always fighting a war? It's never enough for you people, is it? But I suppose it gives you all something to do when you're not trying to make your systems look like MS Windows.
I love Linux, but I'm not going to hamstring myself in such an important area. the browser is rapidly becoming the only app that matters. I now do more than 80% of my work in the browser alone. Netscape for Linux is a joke. Netscape for windows is scarcely better - I'm so tired of the crashes that I'm running IE about 1/2 the time now - and I HATE Microsoft! I fear the battle (and the war) is already lost...
I was using netscape on a linux box for browsing, but you just can't do that unless you want to be shut out of a LOT of sites.
I use linux for everything, and I have this take on the "browser incompatibility" issue. Most websites out there are set up by website designers of varying competency who, in general, love features. They jump on all the bells and whistles they can and use web development software designed for only one particular browser becasue they don't really know how to design web sites.
However most websites out there are owned by companies who, in general, love your money. They want as many people as possible to visit their website and do business with them. Often, though, they aren't aware that their website designers have, through incompetence, feeping creaturism, or laziness, shut out a major group of customers. They don't care if you use Internet Exploiter or whatever, so long as you can access their site and send them your credit card number. To them, lost hits means only lost business.
Whenever I find a site that I can't browse using linux, I send a letter to the owners of that site explaining exactly why I haven't been visiting their website, and why I am forced to take my business to their competition. What I don't do is send this message the the site webmaster. The site webmaster is probably the person responsible for setting up the lame site in the first place and therefore not very likely to inform the site owners of his oversight or fix it. This tactic has worked for a few sites, and for those it hasn't, well I am perfectly happy taking my business and my money to their competition.
Grab VMWare and install windows and use whatever the heck you want!
I am developping software for an internet startup and I am using linux and let me just tell you that NS4.x is just the worst piece of software anyone has ever released under Linux. I ve seen alpha 0.001 with less bugs that that. IE renders table and many other things 100 times faster. I love linux for development but if this goes on I ll end up using windows with a ssh windows to a linux box, with no screen not keyboard. Ie for the web , linux for the backend networking. Too bad ... GloP2. P.s. I dont believe anyone could do anything usefull with the code of Mozilla, people developping it are loosing their faith and the code is too *!@# for someone new to take over.
Obviously a USA law like the ADA could not apply to the World Wide Web, but could disbility advocacy groups be educated and encouraged to add their voices to this debate?
Perhaps sites that won't work with Lynx could be shamed into cleaing up their act.
Perhaps this could bring some heat on Microsoft.
Mr Woo-
There is an irony to your post. You claim to hate malinformed posts, yet you yourself have just posted an entire truckload of crap.
What a wonderful fact. Unfortunately it's incorrect. If you look at the server stats all across the web, you will see that IE is definitely winning the battle. Anyway, Communicator 4 and IE 4 were both released under equally free terms (and equally large downloads) so your argument about the cost of running either is vacuous.
I love this. You understand of course that not all traffic has to go to external sites, right? At my company, the most efficient way of recieving information from another group is typically the web. I can get information from employees in India, England, France, or down the hall by hitting their websites. None of this is recorded in statistics regarding web traffic. But the fact of the matter is that again the COMMERCIAL sector, meaning Industry is MUCH larger than the PRIVATE sector. (Or, home users.) Why? Its numbers. See my original post.
And Free to you, a home user != free to Industry. Where do you think Netscape makes their money? If they gave away their product to Industry, they'd go broke. They sell licenses to companies like mine, where using the free version of Netscape would be a violation of their TOS. (And we could get sued out the wazoo.) The same is true for IE. To use IE for business purposes, one must have a license, which must be purchased.
Second, assuming blithely that Windows is all smoke and mirrors, and will remain so forever, is simply a mistake. If you really believe that the tens of thousands of programmers at Microsoft with IQ in the 130's and up are incapable of producing a decent product, you need to re-examine your assumptions.
Who do you think writes kernel code for Linux? Infinitely many monkeys typing on infinitely many keyboards? Jiminy Christmas! The same brains from industry are the same people who contribute to the kernel for Linux. Plus we get the benefit of countless college professors, students, and freelance coders. I guarentee you that every one of the programmers who write code for Linux are every bit as talented and more than those at MS. And there's two major differences.
1) Linux programmers work for love. There is no higher motivation. Ask any employer at any company.
2) Whereas there aren't actually 10's of thousands of programmers working on the Windows OS, there actually are 10's of thousands of coders working on applications for linux. And more importantly, every user of Linux takes part in the most important step: Debugging.
Please visit my web page for more information. Its not finished yet, but you'll get a gist of what I'm talking about.
Oh, and finally, I'm not suggesting that the community be complacent with where we are, but rather that we continue on with what we're doing. With every user, we gain more and more momentum. This is anything but complacency.
--
"A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
http://www.mnemonic.org/
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Sometimes it just takes a little patience...
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi
As for Netscape disappearing when Java starts,
I just found the solution for this one a couple
of days ago... Going to netscape and searching
on Java and Crash... it tells me:
There is a problem in one of the installation rpms that is causing many systems to not have a complete fontpath for X to use.
to add the required font:
chkfontpath --add
Now Java is working beautifully...
I personally wish that Linux had a mostly-unhackable license manager available. This would let my software development company consider releasing a Linux-based version of our software.
Let me know if I have simply overlooked something that is already available...
Once companies have great copy protection for expensive Apps, many commercial developers will hop on the train.
I personally use KDE, and like it... but I can't
wait for a next-generation Knowledge-based UI!
Let's make a huge leap over the Desktop paradigm and take the world by storm!
Celebrate Excellence!
They knew that in the long run, this was going to be the true battleground. That's why they took a huge risk (using extremely blatant, monopolistic, anti-competitive practices which would be easy for savvy lawyers to spot, unlike their previous anti-competitive practices which were more "behind closed doors" type of deals.) to destroy their main commercial competition in this field, Netscape. The risk paid off, the only Web browser currently worth using is Micros~1's, Netscape has fallen behind. Incidentally, Netscape is not really "just fine" for viewing text and graphics, it still crashes too often (Micros~1 IE doesn't seem to crash as much.) For everyone who is against slick looking Webpages with more flash than substance, well, I can see where you are coming from my family was the last on the block to get a color TV when I was a kid. But they are all color TVs now, and they don't broadcast TV shows in black & white anymore unless they are trying to be artistic (even though black&white is just as good a medium for telling stories and dispensing information as color).
If you are thinking that the goal is to keep Linux as the OS of choice for techies, then ignoring flashy Web content, JavaScript, Cascading Style Sheets, and the rest is just fine. If you are thinking about the mass market, I'm sorry but I don't believe it. If MS can provide a flashy, colorful, entertaining and interactive Web pages in their browser and the OpenSource community can't create a competing format, MS wins. With the mass market anyway, and what they really care about is making money, not being "cool" or anything like that. Yes, I admit, flashy content is responsible for lots of tacky Web billboards. The trouble is, we know billboards are tacky in the real world, but apparently they still make money. (Personally, I also feel that just because you've included "flashy" content in a Web page doesn't make it a Web billboard.)
The best way to compete is to create a browser under the GPL, so that MS can't incorporate any of its features into their proprietary browser. Make it better and easier to create content that is equal to MS's content, and in the long run the price of the development tools (i.e. free) will win over the price of the proprietary development tools (big bucks, restricted licenses).
is only the beginning. What are the Linux users going to do in a year from now when you can't buy anything but USB devices? Will USRobotics or Epson or 3Com or Umax release the information to provide Linux USB drivers? I doubt it, especially when MS is 'paying' them not to. And it's going to be really difficult to reverse engineer them.
I've reread this article several times now and a couple things keep nagging at me.
A) It would have been nice to see some references to the problem sites. While I wouldn't consider myself a power surfer, I can't recall any sites having crashed my browser that weren't doing something funky. Poorly written ActiveX, bad JavaScript, etc will cause problems in nearly any browser.
2) I keep getting stuck on one paragraph:
Since when does Microsoft (or Netscape for that matter) control the HTTP protocol? Granted they have a considerable amount of input, but control? (And don't we really mean the HTML spec here?)
How exactly do features added to IIS make my Apache served site useless? Suddenly my site is obsolete simply because it isn't pulsating with techno music and the text doesn't leap about?
I think not.
--
That is all.
Like, zero.
You can't even just use netscape on windows, because IE's javascript is different from the specs, etc.
The only time I've noticed a difference was with yahoo mail; for a while in a new job I couldn't figure out (duh) how to configure Netscape for their proxy thing, so I used IE -- and IE kept fucking up trying to cope with the javascript in the yahoo mail site. After a few days I figured out the proxy thing and went back to Netscape, because I found IE to be just kinda generally annoying, in addition to their broken javascript. I suppose it's a matter of taste.
Netscape 4.x is bloated and goofy, God knows. It's certainly not perfect software. Nevertheless, let's at least be accurate in criticizing it. I don't seem ever to have seen a single one of the "LOT" of sites that I'm apparently "shut out of". Some examples?
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
All a browser is is a program, it's not that much different than a WordProcessor, Spreadsheet, etc. It really is not part of the OS, despite Micros~1's claims to the contrary. Just as there are some in the OpenSource community working on a great little program called Gimp, there ought to be some in the OpenSource community working on a browser. It's a program that runs in an Operating System, not a part of the operating system, itself. The fact is, I have a perfectly sound ftp program for Linux, but I don't have a sound browser, because the Web has changed so much. But that is no reason to trash the idea of coming up with a decent browser for Linux.
As to "lowest common denominator," if you are talking about Web TV, well I don't think much of Web TV either (it's a crippled computer). On the other hand, if you are talking about the average person who isn't obsessed with computers but would like to use them for various things, well, I disagree with you. As to "knowledgable users" do you really mean knowledgable users or users who are willing to spend what it takes to make sure that their computer hardware is Linux compatible? Some people can't afford the latest hardware, and some of those people are in fact knowledgable users. Money != Knowledge
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Then AOL will get out of Microsoft's bed (or MS will have court-imposed changes as a result of the antitrust suit) and integrate Mozilla into their client. As it filters down to their members, a huge number of IE users switch to Mozilla -- many without even realizing it.
As I understand it, Mozilla's policy towards standards-compliance is "we'll honor the standards, and if you don't we can't guarantee that we'll handle your crap correctly and it's your problem". Suddenly, a large percentage of the audience of noncompliant sites is using a compliant browser.
The noncompliant crap is fixed when a large number of people can't use it.
End result? Return of the Standards.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
How would this help? The new features would have to be open source and Microsoft could simply make an open source plugin for IE. Then IE users don't need to switch.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is why.
Every day it gets bigger, more robust, and more difficult to stop. Eventually MS will have to bow out to Linux not because Linux will declare war on Windows, but because Windows will simply pale in comparison.
Eventually no one (outside the hardcore geeks) wil l use anything other that IE because that's what works on all the web (if current trends continue and they ARE moving this way). A computer without the 'Net is fairly useless (IMHO), the best way the access the 'Net is through a browser. The browser becomes the most important part of the machine. M$ has realized this and is pushing hard to make the browser the OS and build special hooks so that IE/IIS/Windows is the only way to really access the 'Net.
Having surfed the 'Net extensively on both browser on both platforms there is No Question that M$ has a superior product with VASTLY superior third-party support.
You see, one of the most important differences between Windows and Linux is that Windows is all smoke and mirrors (marketing) whereas Linux is an product that is actually well made and capable of delivering on its promises. The public will grow tired of the illusion sooner or later, its all a matter of time.
Every TV show/Movie you have ever enjoyed is mostly smoke and mirrors. Most people DON'T CARE and are more than happy to use smoke and mirrors. Besides, windows (despite it's very many flaws) does work most of the time. I'm a gamer and the doze does games great.
The article illustrated a very good point, people want stuff that "just works", when sites don't they get frustrated and will go back to the herd. Having the pre-eminent browser is the first huge step to desktop acceptance. If you don't want that, then this argument is moot anyway.
+&x
If it's an American company, it falls under the ADA. Right now, AOL is being sued because their page isn't accessible to the blind.
IE4? IE5 has been out for nearly a year and you just started using IE4? Try upgrading to IE5, its smaller, faster and more stable than IE4.
"... Microsoft owns 99% of the web browser market share, and they control the HTTP protocol. They start adding a huge variety of features to their "Internet Information Server", their competitor to Apache, to offer advanced features to Internet Explorer clients. At this point, sites being served by Apache become useless."
I know IIS pretty much inside and out, as well as the capabilities of Internet Explorer/deficiencies of Netscape, but cannot think of a singe feature that makes IIS friendlier to Internet Explorer than any other browser.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Sometimes, Netscape crashes or otherwise fails to render pages correctly because of it's own non-compliance with web standards. Case in point: try designing a web page using CSS. An interesting article about this is at A List Apart.
I guess a lot of people are waiting for-- and hoping for-- Mozilla, for a lot of different reasons.
--
Well whilst we're still required to type:
kill -9 xxxx
I somehow think that the war's been lost already.
I love that stuff. But Joe Schmoe is basically my Mum, and she doesn't have a clue - and I truly believe that whilst people thinks she needs a clue that pretty much anything like Linux or WinXX is dead in the water.
I suggested to her today that I'm gonna buy her a Playstation 2 when it comes out:
"But I don't want to play games dear"
"Sure you don't. But it plays movies and allows you to browse the web and get email with a 'No geeks required' sticker" was my reply.
Bottom line: "Stop thinking in Windows and Mac Metaphors - that's early eighties"
Wish I had a solution to it though.
Microsoft browsers doesn't give them an edge to alter http, just with html. MS licensing prevents microsoft from dominating server platforms forever. Repeat that: MS licensing prevents microsoft from dominating server platforms forever. Don't give server wars another thought.
I don't care if linux isn't attrictive enough for modern computer users. I don't think of recommending linux yet. The real battle is over developers. Schools are more and more anti-unix (and anti-nonMicrosoft for that matter). If future developers are locked into (and loving) MS platforms then we are screwed.
Computers need a new paradigm (fuck desktop metaphor) before they are widespread. Rightnow there are many more non computer users then those the do use them.
Thanks.
Anonymous rant: if you moderate an AC to "1" then that post sits at the same level of a authenicated
loser. It doesn't make any sense. Make me at least a "2". Thanks.
"Tree controls in DHTML are really cool, we
just HAVE to use them, blah blah blah"
WHY? Whats so damn special that you HAVE to
have these "tree controls" in the first place?
So what if M$ desktop explorer has it.
You dont NEED IT on a website.
A simple stacked PWD type thing works great.
eg:
Toplevel > subject > sub-subject > you-are-here
and the user can click on any one of those
he wants to get back toa previous level,
if they are somehow too stupid to use their
history menu, or if you are too stupid to
title your web pages properly (so they show up
understandibly in the history menu)
Stop [re]designing a microsoft desktop, and start
designing WEBSITES.
People are probably going to kill me for this, but I chose to use Internet Explorer, simply because I think it's a better product. It surpassed Netscape.
Sure, Microsoft's market monopoly sux major big time but that doesn't imply that they make bad products.
I started using MSIE on my Sun Solaris workstation, because I wanted the same software regardless of the platform I was working on.
Personally, I found that IE was more stable on any platform, and better sticking to the standards. Yes, you read that right. Try creating some HTML 4.0 or CSS, and see what browser complies best. I've tried it and I know it.
I try to keep the religious arguments out of it. You won't win a war with an icon of Linus and the Holy Book of 4.4 BSD in your hands. Make a better product. There's nothing to be gained by using Netscape, just because it doesn't come from Redmond.
My dream is to seperate user interface and application. Use a browser as your GUI! I couldn't care less what browser that would be. I just know that IE offers me the best possibilites at this moment...
You can beat them by creating something new. Make a standard that uses Netscape as the GUI and communicaties over TCP/IP with the application. That's how you can win.
- Peter
I think the real solution to this problem is to make WINE run IE, as well as all the multimedia plugins. You could run Win32 Netscape, Opera etc... sure, there'd be a performance penalty, but Windows itself comes with a hefty performance penalty, and that doesn't seem to stop people from running it. Linux shoudl be moving to 'Embrace and Extend' the Win32 platform. Easier said than done, to be sure, but this would certainly make Linux a moe attractive platform to many people. Hell, if connectix can do it on a mac (Virtual PC) why can't we do it on Linux? Anyone have any idea how far away WINE is from being able to run IE?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
EOF
So maybe in addition to trying to help Mozilla, we should also begin pushing Apache wherever possible. If we can get more sites to use Apache, we can at least take out those IIS incompatibility problems. Web developers, IT and IS guys and gals out there, if your company isn't using Apache yet, suggest it. Implement it. Because if we fail, we WILL lose the war.
But the whole point is moot because if you want to listen to something that uses Real Player, you're SOL. It's just like once site I can't view in Linux because it uses Quicktime extensivly.
;-)
No, the point is that I personally don't care about Real Player any more because it's gotten way too commercial and annoying to use. Wait for it - Real Player will be superceded soon by something more to our taste, and with the added benefit of being open source and running under Linux.
About 2 years ago I stopped using Hotbot because it got just too annoying, for the same reason, even though it was still the search engine with the best query interface. This year, miraculously, along comes google and is the answer to all (or most) of my prayers. Worth waiting for. In the meantime, I slummed and used altavista (fast seach but horrible interface and lousy presentation of results).
I can see Real Player is headed the same direction - don't get too attached to it. I guess at this point I'll just surf around and find something that can decode streaming ra files. Or I'll wait. It's not that we've got so much time on our hands we have to spend it all listening to ra files
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Theory: The web is based on standards, anyone with a browser can play.
Fact: Most webmasters would like to have to deal with (1) OS and (1) browser. Most want whiz bang features. Most consumers don't care as long as their computer can run all of the whiz bang plugins. This all works in M$'s favor.
We need to make sure that Linux has enough of a desktop presence so that it is in the webmaster's best interest to make their site Linux/Netscape compatible. We need to give LOTS of feedback to the sites that do not support standards and/or Linux users.
Linux is my desktop of choice, but I don't care to be a 2nd class web citizen.
=Razz
The squeaky wheel gets the lubricant.
As I recall, (and I researched this myself) that Netscape Navigator, and IE are both free whether you use it in a company or personaly.
~ ~^~
The liscence wording is pretty dificult to decipher but its there (it uses like a triple negative). We used in the company I worked for as the intranet browser for free, legaly for example.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
While our current page hasn't been updated in a while and will remain like that to mask our efforts, we are planning on writing a web-browser once our widget set is finished. With an extensible, dynamic framework. If something is missing, it can quickly be added.
The key to our design: Stability. This is why we still haven't made a public release of our current line. We are stress-testing everything, down to the simple classes that are too small to ever break. With our design standards, and an OOP framework (with special RAD tools and toolkits), we will have a workable web-browser eventually.
Of course, we are still anywhere up to a year from release date. But just wanted to mention it.
the way i see it (without being any smarter than the average joe, mind you) is that you are right on.
the internet browser could be broken up into dozens of usefull programs. This would make it tons more flexible and easy to program upgrades for.
this is my dream browser.
the browser would have just the top list of things [file][edit][view][go]
then it would have the quickie buttons. [back][reload][forward][home][bookmarks] if these can all fit on the top line, then that's the way to go. (i like to save space on my tiny screen.)
then you would have a location to type addresses in [http://slashdot.org ]
that would be the default setting.
if you wanted more buttons you could add them and program what they would do with perl scripts. kinda like shortcut keys. i'd have a button for [www.informit.com] maybe one for [search page]
after the toolbar everything else would be handled by other programs. (it's time the browser learned to share)
the video and sound part of the browser are obviously reusable.
the same thing for anything to do with graphics.
AND your standard html interpreter could [imho] have plenty of uses outside of the browser.
the documents for a bunch of files i have downloaded are already in html form. take that one step further and make a tiny fast html interpretter, and there is no reason why most of text can't be rewritten in html. man pages could be rewritten with hyperlinks and fuzzy graphics that would make newbies feel at home.
you wouldn't want a tool bar for this, just the text, a couple buttons, a graphic. if the there was any video in the html-ized man page it would have to call up the video program itself.
adding on features to this browser would be easy.
the script parents would get to change all the naughty words would be about a page long, written in perl.
someone would have a spell checker program going.
plus you could program your own buttons to do anything.
this idea has problems and it's not thouroughly thot out. but to me this seems like a pretty cool way to do it.
Yeesh, talk about Linux uber alles. Time to find a nicer guy, Trish?
Starting with IE 4, IE's javascript support was better than Netscape's... which is ironic because Netscape invented the langauge.
Hands in my pocket
One thing i don't understand, is why the put things like mail reader, news reader in the damned browser before it's rock stable.
... sorry if this has already been answered.
Why use the time on the fuz instead of fixing the bugs and making the thing do what it's supposed to do.
Just my oppion
LEt's open source everything! That way, micrsoft can take over the world without doing a thing. mouhahaha!
Reminds me of that famous trust exercise when some one falls and the other catches them:
Netscpace: Hey this falling and being caught thing looks fun. HEY GUYS CATCH ME!
Weeeeeee
Programers: What the hell was that?
In fact, GNOME *uses* CORBA already-- that's what ORBit is-- an ORB for Linux.
-=Eric
This "if you opt for Windows I won't help you" stuff sucks. What an insincere offer.
p.s.
What about the third option: you decide you don't need a computer.
LEt's open source everything! That way, micrsoft can take over the world without doing a thing. mouhahaha!
Reminds me of that famous trust exercise when some one falls and the other catches them:
Netscpace: Hey this falling and being caught thing looks fun. HEY GUYS CATCH ME!
Weeeeeee thud
Programers: What the hell was that?
I've set up a Linux box for my somewhat computer-illiterate dad. Works perfectly fine, the only thing he uses the computer for is to visit some stock market web sites and online stock trading. And with some neat icons on the desktop for this matter and some first-time guidance he now manages this just fine.
Some weeks ago, however, he saw an URL for a new stock web site in an advertisement. He wanted to try it out, but it neatly krasched Netscape every time. You guessed it, it seemed to be a java applet that krasched Netscape when rendering the page.
I mailed the webmaster, and kindly explained the situation for him, with as many technical details I could, and that it would be wise to make the site accessible for non-Windows users too. The day after, I got a kind response from the site manager saying that he was sorry for any inconvinience and that he would let the web site developers look into it.
Then I forgot about the whole thing, until some weeks later, when I played around with my dad's computer again. This time the site (and the applet) worked. The site was still a pain to read (small, fixed font) but it would at least load.
So I guess that the best way to treat "incompatible" sites is just emailing the webmasters and kindly explaining the situation. Don't be afraid of explaining exactly what makes the site incompatible, since most web developers don't test the sites on every platform. They test it in IE and maybe Netscape on Windows in different resolutions and that's it. Maybe, if they're serious, they also test it on Macs.
Linux / BeOS / UNIX? Naeeee... never heard of it. You mean we actually have site visitors that uses those systems? You've got to be kidding.
Ok, there are developers that test their work under whatever browser/platform possible. But those are few. It is a pain in the *ss to test web sites extensively - so I don't blame the developers for not wanting to test everything. But if they start getting attention from some visitors, or preferrably the company that ordered the web site, saying "hey, we've got some mail recently from visitors saying they could not access the site, what's up?" things will happen.
Remember, dont hesitate to mail them. But be polite.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
You think that they are running behind schedule? Well let's see how fast Microsoft could rewrite COM, IE, a new plug-in architecture, messaging client, email/news software and a wysiwyg editor. All for MacOS X, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OpenVMS, BeOS, MacOS classic and for other toolkits like QT.
The WWW has long passed games in importance to the consumer but I still say games are an area that should see alot more attention too. My personal view is that if some well established company (ID could pull this off) released their next big, garunteed-to-be-a-hit, game for Linux first and witheld it from windows for a month or two there would be a huge migration over to Linux. Nobody would do it. It doesn't make good business sence to piss off a majority of your customers that way. But it's fun to think about... :)
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Wow! Look at this cool feature! Add it in, and base our entire site around it. Who cares about older browsers? Those people should upgrade anyway....
Piled on JavaScript, useless toys that need plugins, huge images...etc.
In the end, these sites accomplish just as much as a site that didn't have these extras, and don't look a whole lot better either. Classic examples like freshmeat and slashdot look good and don't rely on stupid toy features. It isn't that hard to cater to a text browser and make your site look good. However, most websites will just stick in a text menu way at the bottom, just to make it usable.
Point is, not everyone has a fast connection or even a fast computer. I bet quite a few people still browse the web from older computers than a Pentium 100, do you think your fancy Java menu works quickly on a 486?
..with a dumb logo.
It's not the job of the webmaster to have to redo and certify their site for a half assed, problematic browser (Netscape 4.x/Linux). Instead projects like Mozilla should be worked on much harder.
Let's start with the realistic assumption that we loose the war. Web browsers work only on Windows. They are a proprietary technology that we have to work around. You cannot exist as a modern human being--do your shopping, banking, whatever, without a Windows box.
Now what do we do?
So either you are at a site that has no animations, graphics of any sort or sound (wasting time) or your at a site consisting mainly of text with a few png/gif/jpeg files.
That's dumber than my idiot professor who broke down the population of atlanta into white, rich and against public transport AND poor, black and for public transport for a supposedly ENLIGHTENING debate.
Go to this website to see a site that makes your argument irrelevant.
http://www.plumbdesign.com/thesaurus/
Bad Command Or File Name
The battle will continue to rage - watch when the CEO of some big company tries to look at his corporate website with a hand held device. Time to market was so important.. if you are selling. Often, sitting on the fence is a good strategy if you are buying. Maybe consider contracting out your "e-presence" for another year or two while we see what unfolds.. :) Personally, I use Netscape on Linux exclusively. It doesn't hurt that bad. If I want flash, I'll go rent the video. Flash dance, flash gordan?? take your pick. I bought my girlfriend a brand new computer with Linux and 98 dual boot. Guess where she spends her time. Oh, and don't worry so much about the war. In the end, there is no way a single corporation, no matter how large, can keep up with the global enterprise that open source is. Microsoft is now the IBM depicted in those old Apple commercials - oh hell! were those actually MS commercials?? that would be ironic.
I think the only effective solution will be a campaign of selective assassinations of microsoft executives.
It does the same damn thing as VMWare.. and vmware performs much better. Both emulate an x86 based computer inside a window. Wine is not an emulator. Wine interprets win32 API calls in x86 binaries, and it runs the program accordingly.
Blah.
Ok, I very nearly said this on LinuxToday, but I've decided to be flamed by a wider audience ;-)
Let's assume that the author's "nightmare" scenario comes to pass: IE suddenly becomes the dominant browser and all major websites decide to lock out users of non-IE browsers.
Will gcc's backends all suddenly commit electronic suicide in despair? Perhaps Emacs is going to decide it's Lisped its last? I assume that Linus, Alan, Andrea, and the thousands of other people who've worked on the kernel will pack up and leave. X, of course, will stop working when the Microsoft takeover alters the fabric of reality, as will FTP, SSH, and CVS. And of course every bleeding window manager will suddenly suffer a fatal heart attack (except wm2 which no-one uses anyway) apt will spontaneously combust, ext2fs will cease to function, the RFCs will self-destruct, Python will be a dead parrot, mpg123 will be silenced, GnomeI-See-You won't, and Freeciv as we know it will cease. All SMTP traffic will immediately halt; Exim, Postfix, and Smail will be outlawed; mutt and all lesser email clients[1] will start requiring stamps to be inserted into the floppy drive; and everything will be a general mess. Plus Microsoft will send people over to my house to demagnetize all my disks.
Yes, I can see how this will affect my life in a very significant and direct way.
Daniel
[1] Everything else.
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Nope, I at least can't find one. Check out the Media Player download page. Maybe you're thinking of the Macintosh version.
Or, on the other hand, you could be be partially right. If I remember it correctly, when MS first created Media Player they said they would make it the de facto player and create versions for multiple OSes, I even think they mentioned Linux, but since then then they seem to have changed their mind, and at some stage renamed it to Windows Media Player. The only port there is to see seem to be the Mac beta port.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
Not because AOL cares about linux, but because AOL won't want their hegemony in their customer base threatened by a web browser "in control" by a major competitor (Microshaft).
How much its worth it to them is another story.
ARGH!
;^)
Linux was never meant to be a mainstream OS. And why was it never meant to be a mainstream OS?
Because UNIX IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. As long as the kernel is intertwined with GNU Unix, it will never be. The issues are just too complex for most people. Just try to explain to your Mom, how to ifconfig your lan card and set up IP routing to go through the gateway. (And don't say, "oh my mom can do that, maybe you need a new mom". My mom sure as hell can't do that, and I don't need a new mom, either.
And the funny part is that no one is even attempting to create an Easy-Linux disto. Sure there are winlinux distros coming out and Caldera Open Linux, but I still wouldn't give those to my Mom to use and expect her to know how it works. And don't think COAS is a solution, because it's not, and neither is linuxconf.
Linux was built from the ground up as a windows alternative. The problem was that the people who were building it up originally were Unix natives, and really just wanted a Unix-like system that they would have more power over than with Windows running on their PC's. And now, other people using Linux are expecting it to be a mainstream platform. In it's current condition, it will never be.
Oh, btw, the creators of Linux succeeded with their original goals. I now have more power over my box than I did with Windows, but ease of use was never an original design goal. It is the cause of some Linux factions that are turning this into a war with MS, battling tooth and nail until the very end. The original idea of linux was to be an alternative OS to Windows. Now we're battling for the desktop. And in the industry, we'd call that Requirements Creep.
An observant person might note that Windows really has the same problem in reverse. It was meant to be easy to use, but has problems being a true powerhouse OS. And in this sense, it costs money to do things that somone can do on Linux for free, and in many cases have an easier time at it. When I fiddle around with MS Word, I often yearn for the commandline tools I have with linux to search the document, or to do a regex substitution. And then I think how much simpler it would be with linux at least until the next glibc upgrade comes out.
Furthermore, in the OS market, there are lots of battles that could lose the war. Office Apps is another biggie. Even if we have a nice browser, we still won't have the office apps. Ease of use is another. So is stability and compatability with existing hardware.
Lastly, I have a solution to the problem your wife experienced. If a site wants to ignore 5 to 20% of a potential market by using incompatible Java code on their servers, fine with me. They certainly won't get my business dollar, but rather a letter of complaint, "Because your site didn't work with my browser, I bought it over at Brand X's site instead." A few of those will turn some heads in the Sales Department.
Just stop trying to convince people of something that Linux is not. Okay? You'll sleep much better at night.
--R
Tree controls are merely a particular example in a broader issue.
The fundamental issue here is that users want rich user interfaces that are delivered remotely, but today's web clients fall short.
The standard widget set that appears on all major desktop GUI systems today is the result of many years of usability research. Tabbed dialogs, popup menus, tree controls, and other sophisticated UI components are popular because they allow UI designers to present information in a compact, approachable fashion that enhances user productivity.
The goal, then, should be to find a way to deliver lightweight, flexible versions of the traditional widgets to web browsers.
Dynamic HTML seems to be the best answer anyone has offered so far because it allows the delivery of eminently usable interfaces that integrate naturally with their web environment, which requires constant revision and textual delivery.
>> Stop [re]designing a microsoft desktop, and
>> start designing WEBSITES.
There's nothing inherently Microsoftesque about the Windows widget set; it is merely a rendition of the standard widget set that has been evolving for years.
As more and more applications that were traditionally delivered via local installation move onto the web, these standard, refined widgets need to migrate as well.
Dynamic HTML is the best existing solution, and IE currently delivers the best implementation of DHTML. Other browsers had ought to follow suit.
I have read the posts that were moderated up and they say that Linux doesn't need a browser. Linux needs a nice GUI. We are not at War. That if I, as an individual, like the current feature set of Linux it need not change yadda yadda yadda.
The truth is Computers and Software are subject to the Networking Effect. The more people that use them the more valuable they are. This goes double for Open Source Software because the best motivation for an Open Source Project is when a user wants to do something on Linux, finds he can't and then sets out to add that ability. That's how you get new software. From users who are also programmers.
10,000 whiners on some internet forum wishing they had a free version of some utility doesn't make that utility appear out of nowhere. 1 user hacking code does.
That is 1 USER. Not some programmer being paid to work on a project he doesn't like on an OS he hates. No USER, No program. More USERS more programs.
If we don't attract and keep other users, Linux will wither and die. Some people may like to see that. They would like to be one of the proud few that hack Linux. Well, they can join the guy I know who has an old VAX in his basement. Really cool guy, but what the hell is the VAX at home good for? Can you play Quake on it? If we don't have the ability to get full use out of the Web with Linux then no one in the future will use it. If no one uses it why bother porting QUAKE XXXV to it? Or anything else? It will shrivel and die. The dream will be over. And you will have to pay Microsoft in order to sneeze.
First, I'd like to point out that I've been surfing the web with Netscape/Linux for over a year, and I've barely come across a handful of web sites that didn't work. And hey, if there is a site I can't get into, well that's one less set of eyes to view their ad banners, now isn't it? Secondly, I do think that Netscape really let us down. They took a good first step by opening the source code, but I've been waiting way too long for the new version. I've given up on Mozilla, and I figure Opera will be available for Linux long before Mozilla is. Here's a tip in case you want to promote compatibility: If you can't get into a site because it's for IE and/or Windoze only, e-mail the webmaster and tell them that you find it outrageous that they're using a supposedly open medium in a very closed manner. They won't do anything about it if you alone e-mail, but if we all stand up and speak out about this, I think they'll take notice. Finally, if you're a webmaster, go to http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ for details on what you can do. Nobody believed us when IE came out, and we said Micro$oft was trying to take control of the web, huh? Well now look where we are. That browser may be free in price, but it's cost us a lot of freedom. :-P
I'm one of the people who maintains www.ticalc.org, a website dedicated to Texas Instruments calculators and their bevy of programs - and I use Windows 98. I've thought MANY, MANY times of using Linux. Fact of the matter is, Linux is just better in my opinion, but what keeps me coming back to 98 is the constant support that you see for programs under it. Eight members currently work at ticalc.org. Of those, three have Linux and only one doesn't have Windows (the others dual boot). All of us (except the one hardcore Linux user) all use IE as our primary browser. Why? Simple - out of all the browsers out there, IE provides the most amount of support for, well, everything! I know it sucks, but we [being the staff] have to deal with it, as there's just no comparable alternative out there. The problem I see here is not just a browser issue, but rather an issue with compatibility in general. Keep in mind the fact that even though Macintoshes are superior hardware-wise to PC's, it currently seems like they'll never gain a permenant grasp over the market as far as software support goes. Too many programs are unique to Windows for this to happen. This is the same for Linux. Over the past many years, we haven't yet seen Macs with the same degree of compatibility as PC's. It doesn't look like Linux will get that way anytime soon. Until then, I'll wait. We'll all wait. And when it happens, Microsoft will be *dead*. "It's the software, stupid."
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
Consider these points:
1) This is the classic Microsoft MO. "Embrace & Extend". First, give something people want, then litter it with proprietary extensions. More mindless zombie users adopt the product, non-users can't use their non-M$ product anymore, and before you know it, Microsoft has locked up the market. When has this strategy failed them?
2) If AOL doesn't decide this is worth fighting with $$$, there is no "organized" counter-organizational effort to MS.
3) The problem is insidious. You can persuade lots of people to not use MS browsers, but it will become harder to do if they aren't willing to boycott websites that alienate their web browser. Websites will be encouraged to adopt MS proprietary extensions, because of a feature that will enhance their multimedia presentation, and by default, their product's (webpages) marketability , and they can't wait for the W3C or Sun or AOL to offer the same feature.
4) Even if Mozilla comes out and kicks ass, (and I am not nearly as pessimistic as some of the posters) it still won't be adopted, because M$ proprietary extension will shut it out of webspace.
There needs to be more active countermeasures to Microsoft's methodical efforts! The peaceloving, anti-M$, protest, hippie crap is not going to cut it.
Well, lets start applying some consumer psychology here. Webmasters would be discouraged from using M$ extensions, if they knew they would shut out a significant portion of non-M$ web browser eyeballs. But what can discourage a mass of net surfers from using the M$ web browser?
Fear. Fear that something on their machine will not work if they use the M$ web browser. Or fear that using an IIS server will not operate effectively enough to enable their web marketing services.
Note that the M$ extensions in Java and the web browsers are designed to access COM features which enable those multimedia features. Features where, if a designer flaw was introduced, would either inactivate the IIS server, or introduce a flaw in the client browsers' machine.
Yup, I'm proposing guerilla cyberwarfare. There are enough sociopaths in the world who will write viruses to screw up machines, and other sociopaths that will hack server webpages.
Instead of vandalizing a website's pages, change the scripts to attach a virus, which when used by IE browsers, will do nasty things to the users machine. Or intermittently interfere with https services on the server end.
Now you have achieved fear. Companies will not use IIS if they know they will lose 20% of their potential purchasing audience to authentication failures interfering with a commerce transaction. Users will not use IE if they have to worry about hitting a gov't or commercial webpage, and then losing their harddrive. (Hell, I deliberately avoid IE now because I can't stand some updated DLL breaking a perfectly working program.)
M$ is reknown for footdragging corrections to flaws in their product. Until they can hire people capable of a through product design that features security, and allow them to do their job properly, they will always be vulnerable to this activity.
Even if M$ can come up with patches, they will not be able to patch items that are a security DESIGN flaw. And when they end up recommending turning off this M$ extension or that extension, the non-M$ browsers win! They will now have an even playing ground.
Success here is convincing enough virus designers and web hackers to work synergistically. It doesn't have to be organized. Viral crackers will still be doing their thing, and web hackers will only have to change their motivation from obvious vandalism of a page, to a truly insideous, yet freedom loving activity.
Comments?
"IF we fail we will lose the war".. uhmm.. what war? What war for gad's sake????
---> Did you know Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX ?
Greetings,
Fascinating. I've been a professional programmer for 20 years, and every single programmer I've known disagrees with your statement:
People make better software when they are paid to make it. This is their job, not their hobby.
Every programmer I've ever known acknowledges that the code they write for their own use is generally better, more complete, more interesting, and more extensible than the code they write for work. Remember, THEY have to use it, whereas the code they write for work just has to be used by others.
Reality doesn't jibe with your preconceptions.
Cyberfox!
What the heck?? What type of husband would say Linux or Windows when getting married???!!!! I use both (yikes)and to tell the truth....I would much rather have to support Windows than Linux. Users today, regular ones, are getting quite savvy with computers, but not enough to use Linux. It is much easier to setup Windows than it is to setup Linux, I know I will get hit for that, but.....
qwerjkl,
:)
Actually, IE's Javascript comes closer to the ECMA standard than Netscape's does. Or at least it did when I last reasearched it (about a year ago--too long I know).
Everybody,
Mozilla is important. More important than anything else. Those of you who think that Linux will do great because you can modify the source code are mistaken. Eric (whats his last name?) in a recent article compared open source software to a car. Because anybody can work on their car. Bull! It takes a lot of training, know-how, experience and equipment to repair cars.
I know how to get into a car, turn the key, push the pedals, and egads! shift the gears. I can't repair them. I'm not intimidated by the thought of working on my own software, but I don't have the time to commit to it. (If you're going to flame me for that, consider that I have a 10 month old daughter. Coding is fun, but it just doesn't stack up (pun intended))
My mom knows how turn the computer on, move the mouse, and push the keys on the keyboard. Even the concept of what source code IS is foreign to her. In fact, it took solitare on Windows 3.1 for her to get over her fear of the mouse!
Mozilla is important because it is THE interface to the internet.
L8R
I've finally found the off by one erro
You and others make very good points concerning Web development and the commercial marketplace.
However, I know of very few home users (i.e. leisure time, not home businesses) that use their computer on the Internet for more than just basic Web browsing and e-mail or chat. Linux works well enough for me on that front.
Furthermore, with the nice desktop publishing apps and improvement on desktop environments, Linux is fast-becoming my OS of choice for ANY use, except of course for those addictive games that aren't ported (but there are good ones on linux as well).
I don't think Linux is either down or out in the desktop arena. When I talk with people or help them with computer problems, most have heard of Linux and wonder what it is, and many are intrigued when the word 'free' comes up, even after I am careful to explain what it entails. And I just love when I can say I don't turn my computer off and don't have to reboot it daily (or more often), and I don't get any illegal operation error messages.
But as many know, it won't be an overnight or short-term battle. If the lack of quality and consistent need to upgrade (and pay $) continues in the Windows OS, though, I could see many of my contacts moving away from it. And if the Linux installation procedures improve, I can see it happening faster. Glittery new features wear thin quite fast when compared to a stable environment where all the features may not yet be there, but at least the computer is running so that they can be enjoyed.
And you can turn java back on. Read the Faqs and you will find answers.
:)
Everyone touts the magic app. There is no such thing as a magic app. We can't loose, Linux started out without a web browser, didnt have a whatever but people do use it, and will continue to use it, reguardless of it having program x, because it fills a true NEED. It was built on alot of needs and a few wants. Most Programs in linux were done because someone NEEDED the program and a few were done because someone wanted to learn to program. Well it just continues to fill needs faster and faster and it is picking up a few wants along the way
Go get the teency 400k download from MacroM.
It runs. It runs well. Some really good stuff can be done with Flash. Doesn't mean we should banish it. MacroM. is about the *only* provider of it's plugin for Linux and I applaud that, and you should, too. It means they're accepting that Linux users browse the web too.
(Now if they'd only port the authoring tools!!!)
So it's not O.S. Whoopteeding.
If they've got IMAP on the Exchange server, you can use Netscape, and I assume any other IMAP client. At least it works for me. *shrug*
Of course you can't get all the scheduling, etc. stuff....does anybody actually use that anyhow?
My wife has many of the same problems, but it isn't with web sites. It is with office documents sent by co-workers, friends and families. Those formats are explicitly proprietary and much harder to crack or work around.
I have used Netscape 3 Gold for Linux and it hasn't crashed on me once. I have also used Netscape 4.5 for Windows, and it crashes occasionally. I have never used IE3 or IE4, but I have used IE5 and it is ... not very good. As far as I have noticed, Netscape3 and IE5 can both render almost all pages on the web, with the exception of Java pages and Plugin pages. (I avoid pages using Plugins even under Windows, and I almost always have Java turned off.)
Lynx manages to render most pages on the 'net, and if you run it under X11 it can render graphics, too.
No matter what you do to Mozilla for Linux, it won't be able to use Microsoft's latest OLE/VB/whatever plugins. Microsoft seems to have polluted the Java standard, unfortunately, which means that Mozilla probably has a fair bit of catching up to do.
Microsoft does not (yet) control the server standards, except indirectly through the FrontPage extensions. I am not sure exactly what the purpose of these are. It is perhaps more likely that MS will pollute the internet mail standards, with more and more people using `free' services like Hotmail.
Daves hit it right ON. As have many others noticing that THIS is a CORE application in determining the success of Linux.
In a former job, programmers installed IE on a Solaris Box, much to my sadness - becuase IE just did somethings better for these users.
In my personal experience with NS 4.7 and RH 6.0 I experienced lockups (with Java and JS disabled) and what appeared to be a failure to release memory resources. I have never experienced problems as bad on the win95/98 version of NS 4. IF MS leads in Java/CSS/XML with IE the rest of the platforms (inc linux) WILL always be a distant 2nd choice.
She could do everything she needs to just fine on NT with IE. You're just letting your bigoted political agenda get in the way. Welcome to the dollhouse.
One of the things I hate the most is when the idiotic webmasters put a RealPlayer file (that I have the ability to view under Linux) as a plug-in, without providing a link to the file or URL so it can be viewed with an expawned external viewer.
_ __________
Damn! How much would it cost them to add a simple link.
Damn you all webmasters that use plug-in mode only!
__________________________________________
The main reason a reasonable person would not want to use GNU/Linux and UNIX as their standard web browser is not the lack of plugins, or the large amount of RAM it requires (although that is definitely a shame.)
:-)
It's simply that the most advanced browser available under GNU/Linux and most UNIX machines, Netscape Navigator, is not nearly as stable as one would expect from a typical Linux app. It also needs to conform better to current standards, and introduce support for new ones such as the PNG image format. This much at least is obvious.
Now, if it happened that Netscape/Mozilla were extremely stable - as stable as one would expect from a typical GNU/Linux or UNIX app - fewer people would become frustrated with browsing the web in this environment. That alone would translate into many more people using these OS' for browsing.
When the amount of people using a platform increases beyond a critical mass, they start to get noticed by the webmasters and site designers. The same thing happens with plugin vendors, witness Macromedia's Flash plugin for GNU/Linux. As the number of people using GNU/Linux for browsing increases, and we have good reason to believe it will, this trend will continue with both site designers and plugin vendors. It's all about demand.
None of this will happen, though, if the browser is unfriendly to use. An application which crashes frequently is _not_ friendly, this is much of the reason I don't use Windows myself. Why should we expect less from our applications than our OS?
By extension, why should we contribute less? Some people seem upset with the Mozilla license. However, Netscape gave GNU/Linux credibility early on by porting Navigator, a rather large show of good faith on their part. They've even given us the source. Now it's crunch time for the Mozilla project, and they could use help. It certainly couldn't hurt to return the favor.
The man has it dead on, we need to support the Mozilla project as much as possible. Otherwise we'll be left in the dark on the web, which after all is where GNU/Linux is traditionally strongest. Let's not give up the home turf
GPL: Free as in will
People seem to forget the is was our 'saviour' Netscape that introduced plug-ins in the first place. The problem is distributing implementations as opposed to content. Sure, stuff like the inherently commercial Flash format need native binaries, but how long to you thing the current implementation of [insert curddy instant messager program here] are going to be around? As long as HTML/JPEG/GIF/VRML/XML? NO. Anyone basing their business around other, opportunitic gee-whizzery should have their head read: people tire of the gimmicks and you're left with thousands of lines of useless code.
Um, the original Macintosh came out in 1984. That's mid-eighties.
... that's it, nothing more.
Windows is early nineties.
win95 is a bad copy of what Mac had released in 1989, the main improvement being stability (yup - compared to the mac's of the day, 95 was stable; scary to think of 95 being stable relative to anything though).
PlayStation2 is marketing hype
A gleam in someone's eye.
Sony's marketeers are smoking crack though.
The author is right on when he states browser compatibility will be the ultimate battle for Linux users to conquer. Let us begin by first acknowledging that even between Netscape on a Win machine and IExplorer on a Win machine there are SIGNIFICANT differences in the way they operate, function and display. This incompatibility has already presented problems to web builders seeking to provide service to both browsers. But then along comes the Linux users who are suffering even more incompatibility then the Win boxes. So what is a web builder to do - build three sets of web pages to best serve each of the browers/OS or build the lamest possible web site that will be able to function to all three types of browsers/OS. Unfortunately, what we are seeing are two camps of web builders taking sides - the majority being lazy are building for one particular browser/OS - the remainder are building the lamest possible web sites in order to cater to the majority. But what is the point of an internet full of lame and lookalike web sites. The evolution of the internet was to go from the boring and sterile 'all text' format to the more graphically pleasing evolutions of HTML et al. I first became aware of the significant difference between the Netscape and IExplorer on the Win box following some complaints. So I fired up the latest versions of both browsers and saw exactly what the rumblings of mutiny were all about. So with great diligence I set about to redesign the web site so that both the NS and IE Win users both saw what I had designed for them to see. Then I start getting e-mail from Linux users, using Netscape for Linux, who were suffering the same incompatibility problems as the initial Win Netscape users. This presented me with a problem as I would have assumed that the latest Netscape on both OS would have at minimum some similarities in their function and operation. Alas, this is not the case. In fact I almost tend to believe that Netscapes decision to open source their code may be at the root of all the problems. Netscape for Win has become the sloppiest and slowing operating web browser on the Internet. Its ability to load a web page and then display it usually takes twice as long as the IExplorer. It is amazing that two browsers reading the same HTML coding can take such different times to read, arrange in memory and then commit to the display terminal. So I have personally stopped using my Netscape when travelling the Internet simply because of the lousy load times and the poor display characteristics of that browser. Now the question might arise as to whether it is the HTML editing programs that are partly to blame. And I can see some potential arguments to support that line of reasoning. I have FrontPage 98, Cold Fusion, Dream Weaver, HotDog, HotMetal and a raft of other assorted HTML editors - and yes each of them does tend to do business quite differently - often resulting in html source code that is visually different from one an other - but ultimately displaying on the web browser in a similar manner. But again the end result is that all of them function 100% correctly and as designed in the IExplorer but not correctly in the Netscape browser. So the battleground is set and it looks like the source of the Linux browser war is in the botching of the Netscape open source coding being carried out. In their quest to 'kick MS's ass' and prove they can improve on the MS product they have gone off down a dark alley of botched efforts. The thoroughly convinced Linux users instead of blaming the Netscape source coding instead continue to heap their blame on IExplorer as the source of all the incompatibilities. But this is such a blind and self defeating way to do business and is only giving the Linux users a lame browser that they are forced to 'continue using' simply because 'that is all there is' I have to look at this whole episode as akin to the old story about the mother who was attending the ceremonies at a military cadet school and the young cadets were doing a march pass the review stand. One soldier cadet was marching out of step compared to all the other soldiers marching pass. And the mother ( possibly a Linux mother ) crowed proudly of her off-stepping son - "Look at Johnny, he is the only one who is marching correctly..." This could be the battle cry of the Linux users, in that 'only they are marching correctly and that the MS browser is the one out of step..."
1 and a half years later, this browser is still nowhere near completion. There is a band of rebels working feverishly on the code, trying to bring it to a usable state as quickly as possible. Plagued with problems and set-backs, Mozilla continues forward, currently at "Milestone 10"... It time to realize that to win over M$ you have to win your customers. Is there anything on this planet that we humans made which is "rock-solid"? NO. Are consumers only accepting "rock-solid" product? NO. Are consumers buying those products? YES. Why? Life is short, consumers want to enjoy it as much as they can -- if they wait for the "rock-solid" product, they will get nothing but more waits. So its time to realize that consumers want "features" and "up and running in no time" capability more than anything else and they want it "yesterday". Do they care where it came from? NO. But if you give them those two elements, they will come back day after day.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
It time to realize that to win over M$ you have to win your customers. Is there anything on this planet that we humans made which is "rock-solid"? NO. Are consumers only accepting "rock-solid" product? NO. Are consumers buying those products? YES.
Why? Life is short, consumers want to enjoy it as much as they can -- if they wait for the "rock-solid" product, they will get nothing but more waits.
So its time to realize that consumers want "features" and "up and running in no time" capability more than anything else and they want it "yesterday". Do they care where it came from? NO. But if you give them those two elements, they will come back day after day.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Since MS-run Web servers are not secure, crash/hack any MS-only Web sites. To maintain security, eventually they will switch to a Unix/Linux server or at least stop using MS-only features. Perhaps this is a job for...SUPERWORM! Faster than a slothing IIS. More powerful than a single Intel box. Able to scale non-scaling systems is a single bound. It's SUPERWORM. Friend of all Web browsers and nemesis of all exclusionary code. In its never ending battle, it shall freely prowl the Net, seeking out proprietary code features and CRASH them with a single Ping! It will arm itself with every virus, flood, overflow, ActiveX, Java attack known and unknown. Operating out of its Fortress Of Solitude in .de land, true programmers from around the world will secretly contribute code to its it ever growing power for standards, justice, and the open source way!
Netscape "gave away" their browser only for non-commercial purposes. Companies had to pay for it.
It's Netscape's fault. The web was ruined by Netscape's way of ignoring standards long before M$ realized what the web was. If it wasn't for M$ and MSIE, the "fast forward a year" would be already have happened. Except it would have been Netscape monopolizing the market, and not M$.
From the begining, all Netscape was interested in was making money, by dominating the market. Remember the early years, where you actually had to pay for your Netscape browser? (Ok, hands up, who was not a software pirate and downloaded Netscape and paid for it? - and don't come with "non-commercial use wasn't free", because it wasn't.)
As for third-party, platform dependent plugins, you cannot blame Microsoft for that. Plugins were a Netscape invention; and third-party plugins are, well, third-party plugins. Of course, while the cubicles of Netscape housed some programmers that were interested in porting Netscape to as many platforms as possible; the company itself mostly looked at the Windows market, as that's the only platform of interest when you want to dominate.
The browser war is over, and there isn't a clear winner. Which is a good thing.
-- Abigail
Anyways, we are losing the browser war...
If Macromedia isn't making the plugins, it's because they don't see need. If it's because the
people who are making the plugins, then we need to make them feel the need.
Is Slashdot. It often crashes on Slashdot and I have to use Lynx. I used Navigator 4.61 on FreeBSD.
Otherwise, you see blank screens!
Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
I am a webmaster, and the truth is, my job is much easier when IE and NN have their own standards. Simply because I have an excuse to use neither!! And it is easy to convince my clients too (I get paid twice as much if I have to create two versions of the same page).
You can't just blame IE, because NN tried to do the same thing. They tried to be cool by having their own features, and that is the battle they lost.
I think that anyone who creates a site that is dependent on a platform is indeed missing the point. Especially business sites. So instead of playing along with the misguided, it might be better to just educate them. It might be better for NN to just comply with W3C and set a good example. Less addons, less code. That makes many people happy.
I would also like to say that a beautiful web site is often one that is simple, compatible, well structured, and graphically pleasing. Many hi tec sites I have seen may be "advanced", but many lack in beauty anyway, and are simple geek jobs. Be it a NN geek or an IE geek, they did their job well, but as far as the surfer is concerned, they don't care unless they themselves are geeks enough to appreciate the tec.
I find JavaScript very useful. Also, as far as visual effects are concerned, nothing can beat photoshop or a good graphics program. And once you master tables, you can pretty much create any darn layout you please. You can make a web site look like anything by just using light weight gifs or jpgs.
Finally, even if you use DHTML or CSS or whatever, there is no need to make your site dependent on it. Just as frames have noframe tags, whatever you do, you should at least make the site functional for all platforms. And usually, you can do this without the surfer noticing (use javascript to detect the browser, and do stuff behind their back).
So that is my three pence.
I'm seriously saddened by the article. But there are MULTIPLE fronts that should be looked at, not just the browser. Web sites with all of these bandwidth heavy plugins are subdividing the web. In most cases, the designers (or their bosses, to be fair) convieniently 'forget' that there's more than one OS and browser in the world. . To be blunt, web designers should adhere to the agreed standard and everyone wins. Cute toys are not 'information'.
Other guilty parties would be the plugin makers. If Macromedia makes a new plugin, that's dandy with me, but they definiatly should make it for multiple platforms otherwise it limits the usability of the plugin.
I also commend the author for his newfound desire to start kicking into the Mozilla Project. I honestly don't think I'm an adequate enough of a programmer to participate in such a project. Power to you dude!
Final suggestions: Putting some pressure on offending websites/masters and plugin makers to provide at least BASIC compatibility may help move this process along. (IE: En-masse e-mail complaints with rational laguage within.) Because wether or not Mozilla was up and flawless today, Macromedia Shockwave support probably wont be there.
Hex.
* Hex's World... It's okay. http://w3.one.net/~hex/
Female Prison Rape in NY
Linux was/is built around the internet. If Linux lacks a modern browser, Linux is dead. Yes, getting a good gaming base would help, but it certainly didn't help the Amiga. Linux needs good quality end user applications. A modern browser is the most important one.
The future of computers is the network. If Linux lacks the features to interact with the rest of the world (no matter what platform the other side is), it will die.
One of the goals of the Linux community is to get Linux on the desktop. Mortal desktop users do not care about 64bit file systems, IPv6, and they especially do not care about parallel processing.
Just look at Dave's wife. She is the one of the types we are trying to convince to use Linux. She didn't care that Linux had stable multiprocessing or process control. She just wanted to have the same experience as her friends.
That's the idea of the internet: COMMUNITY. Without it, Linux is dead. Read Judge Jackson's FOF about Microsoft. He concluded that one of the main reasons that people buy Windows is because "everyone else" has it too. People buy it because they think there is a community out there.
If Linux bends over for the lowest common denominator, I'm going FreeBSD, and so will all the people developing for Linux
This is the mentality that will kill the Linux movement. Just because the next step in technology was not developed open source does not make it inferior. Technology will advance. If we choose not to keep up because we think that we are "too good", we have only proven ourselves to be stupid and arrogant.
We need a good browser.
Maybe Dave's just TIRED, as *I* am, of having to support Windows...getting blamed when it craps out again and won't do something even though it should be able to, and corrupts itself and crashes and doesn't install correctly...and we, with all of our computer knowledge can't do SHIT because it's all closed and all propritary and made by people who think that "User Friendly" means "Don't give people ANY options...assume EVERYTHING..and then blow up in the fucking middle of the install when one of your stupid assumptions aren't met."
There's a REASON that we switched from Windows to Linux, and yet, we get pulled kicking and screaming into windows idiocy by clueless family members (and unfortunately) people that we actually love like our wife.
His policy of not giving support for Windows idiocy saved his wife AND himself from 3 years of torment, and now he's being forced to go back to windows idiocy by clueless web site operators...otherwise his wife wouldn't feel a need to go back to windows.
I think that his policy of only supporting Linux was correct...it taught his wife what REALLY WORKS and what is REALLY STABLE. He's angry as hell because that is being changed, not because his policy wasn't originally correct.
Before you say that he is mean, think of all the pain and suffering he saved his wife from for 3 years.
So you've heard, eh?
;)
In a word, no. Are there some things that suck?
Sure. ActiveX documents have been dropped like a dirty sock. But the actual WebBrowser component works like a charm. It is extremely simple to
create your own version of IE (GreenRDExplorer?)
with VB or VC++. I can't admit to having done it with VJ++ tho
Think for yourself or don't think at all.
Do anal-retentive people hyphenate 'anal retentive'?
It really isn't that hard to make a snazzy site that is quick to load and works with every browser.
Exactly. For instance, I just bought a laptop computer. On the basis of size, weight, quality of the screen and a few other factors, I picked a Sharp Actius PC-280. It came with Windows 98 on an 8.1 gig hard drive. I figured with Partition Magic and a few install CDs in no time I'd be able to install BeOS and Linux, always booting into the best OS for the job at hand.
As a change of pace - I'm used to Redhat and Turbo - I tried to install Caldera OpenLinux, but eventually gave up in disgust. Then I tried to install BeOS and gave up in disgust. I've been working for most of a week in my spare time to try to install an alternative OS either directly from PCMCIA-based CD or off a hard disk partition built by copying files off that CD under Windows, and have thus far been entirely unsuccessful. We are so far away from being plug-and-play on new hardware at this point that it's just ridiculous.
I'm sure I'll eventually manage to install some form of Linux - I'm about to try a net install of RedHat - but most people wouldn't bother. If we end up with an OS that only runs on last year's hardware, we've failed.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Surely the war for the home client is hard going because of the very nature of microsoft's hold on the market. ie is very much more stable and faster than netscape on win32. Is this surprising given the hold ms have on hidden interfaces and various things like that.
Certainly like TV the media transmission market is vital business. However we must consider the business to business market. Free from the need for fancy plugins and client side code, the new internet technology battle ground is probably in the likes of XML and server side technology. HTTP, SMTP, or whatever the business transactions that will be carried aren't interesting in the new fancy http protocols.
Stable scable servers will be the byword there.
I've been doing site UI and content for four years (more frenetically some times than others) and I've yet to develop on IIS (which in my market is a MEGA-liability), and when asked I recommend Linux/Apache (with the caveat that it can be hard to find an admin around here w/o paying absurd $$$ for the benefits). I'm actually kind of proud of that, most days.
/. on my daily must-visit list).
I despize Windoze. But I use it because the hassle's bearable: "What, me worry when I all I have to do is reboot?" I hand-code my page source and for the time being, that's good enough for me. I'll have to delve into systems stuff soon enough, which means eating my advice (and that is why I'm finally putting
What makes my experience relevant? The fact that computers are TOOLS. We need reliable tools (if you have the resources, you'll buy a Mag-Lite over a dinky Chinese flashlight any day, right?) but we are reaching the point where discretion is the better part of valor. I don't need setup wizards, but I DO need setup procedures that are AT LEAST as easy as editing CONFIG.SYS - and that puts me in the minority amongst non-hackers. Most want simply to use their friggin' tools.
Would you prefer to buy a flashlight that you had to assemble from parts, load with an esoteric type of battery, that would burn out its bulb if you didn't turn it off before changing the batteries?
If your answer to that question was "yes" then I stand in awe of your masochism.
...Yet many of us (myself included) think nothing of exhibiting comparable masochism in regard to our servers and stations.
If on the other hand we want open-source software to succeed, we have to (ugh) follow the Web designer's mantra: "This site is being used by USERS." Not designers, not programmers, not MENSA members, not tinkerers by vocation, but USERS.
I can't support slavery to the rapid product cycle (which in my opinion, is ultimately a horrible folly)... but there definitely needs to be a reality check. A Geologically Stable Operating System (or Web Browser) is a noble goal, but it ain't worth a damn until it achieves some transparency. That will ultimately require compromises.
...So find a proactive way to make that compromise, instead of pulling some sort of apocalyptic attitude. The means to the end may be significant, but there has to be a genuine END for that statement to be valid. --BMH
...When in doubt, think for yourself.
I have just one question:
.. who the hell are "we"? If we are the public, the consumers, then we have won, and would have won no no matter who had made the best browser, NS och MS. If "we" are a bunch of Linux-loving lamers who honestly believe that Microsoft is an evil empire, then we have lost.
If Microsoft released IE for Linux (I know how big the chance of that is, so no need to tell me) would any of you Microsoft-hating Linux-lovers use it? EVEN THOUGH it kicks Netscapes ass in every way imaginable?
Some people seem to think that everything Microsoft does is evil, and that IE has to suck just 'coz it's from Microsoft.
You say "WE will lose the war"
I won, because I'm benefiting from the results of that browser war: I'm using IE5. How about you guys? If you could use IE5 on your Linux machine, would you?
There are other angles from which we can attack this. We compose a significant number of people who are locked out of sites due to proprietary MS standards. The question is how can we attack this?
1.) Create a site cataloging all linux unfriendly sites
2.) Email the webmasters, and the higher-ups of those sites notifying them that they have excluded a significant number of viewers. And point them to the site listed in 1.
3.) Continue working on Mozilla
4.) "Embrace and Extend" some webstandards of our own.
5.) Continue to browse the web using linux, never giving into Bill's monopoly.
friends of mine are dumping icq for msn messenger even though messenger has waaaay less features... etc
kinda like the beginnings of ie all over again...
icq vs. messenger = netscape vs. ie ?
instant messenger incompatibility might put another stranglehold on desktop-web-linux...
an even tougher one than ie-proprietary functions...
And open its source to Mozilla developers - or do a whole lot more, and pitch in. I can think of a few DOJ reasons. It would really help all. I blame Goverment Websites, that create 'unopen' pages, with ever increasing bandwidth
By using the word 'us' in the title, you have assumed that everyone who reads /. is a Linux groupie. I know /. is slanted toward Linux heavily, but are we to the point of assuming ALL the readers are too?
The User Friendly strip where Dust Puppy is being named:
http://www.userfrie ndly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html
hehe.
is a need for a fresh perspective . . . i don't think that constantly referring to it as a war does anyone on any platform any good. Showing that an average user - not like most of us - want to access everything "their friends access". By constantly having a belligerent "us v. them" attitude it turns many "average" users off. There needs to be a bit of a reach out and educate effort, not an elitist isolationism. james
Sorry. The "integration" bit in the subject had no relation to anything in the post. If that offended you, be assured that's not what I meant.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
The fact that GCC is a truly hot compiler has certainly not forced C/C++ compiler vendors to adopt the open source model. Rather, they've gone off and done their own independent implementations.
On the other hand, the CMU Common Lisp project placed their code in the Public Domain. The result was that Lisp vendors moved quickly toward the emerging X3J13 standard. Far from hurting CMU Common Lisp, the fact that Lucid, Franz, and others were able to pick up truly free code without facing the restrictions of the GPL, helped to quickly solidify the standard on which it was based. Today, as the only real survivor, CMUCL continues to benefit from the popularity of Lisp development during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
While the restrictions of the GPL are intended to promote freedom, they are, in fact, restrictions on what you are allowed to do. Even restricting discussion to the Free Speech sense of Free Software, if GPL is free, BSD and PD are freer than free -- fewer restrictions on your freedom to do what you wish with the software.
If you believe that Free Software and Open Source are superior models, you have no need to fear the propietary model. The fact that some of the people who advance the ideas that you wish to promote through Free Software development are motivated by hopes of financial gain in no way detracts from your goals. It might even help to advance them.
For those of us who depend on other people's development efforts, those development efforts to some degree depend on a certain amount of critical mass, which is why (at least some) developers contribute to Linux rather than each writing their own OS. Critical mass means it matters to some degree what other people are doing.
It may not matter whether Linux takes over the "average" user's desktop or not, but given the fairly universal appeal of web browsing, having a usable web browser is pretty important to Linux having enough client users to provide some of that critical mass--more people to contribute to development efforts, more people to ask websites to support cross-platform standards.