Everybody seems to think "well just because it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed." We should not (and will not) bow down to these kinds of gripes. The coummunity is in the business of producing better software--not equal software.
I don't think "just becuase it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed" and I didn't say anything like that in my blog post. I said that if you want to get Windows users to migrate to Linux, you need to make the transition as easy as possible and that often means making some features and behaviors work like Windows.
Firefox didn't adopt IE's "be overrun by pop-ups" feature but we did adopt Ald+D to focus the addressbar. We decided it was worth more to the user to give them a pop-up free browser than to try to train them to use Ctrl+L to focus the addressbar.
It's not one or the other. Pick your battles. For linux to be successful in converting Windows users, it is going to have to make smart decisions about these kinds of issues. I can see approximately zero value in reversing the OK and Cancel buttons and I can see it being a very uncomfortable re-learning curve with a lot of pain when the user gets it wrong out of habit. Where is the value there. Why throw up that difficulty.
f that was required for people to switch no one would ever move to Apple.
This is the third or forth time I've seem mention of this on this thread. I think you all overestimate the number of people switching to Apple. How many users have they actually taken from Windows? A million? Two million? It certainly isn't much more than that. I know it's apples to oranges, but Firefox gets about that many IE switchers _every_week_. How did we go from one or two million users total just a couple of years ago to many tens of millions of users today? In part by making it work the way IE users expected it to work (without dropping innovative and powerful features like tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking.)
If there is a better way of doing things why not do it? I think constraining yourself to the way Windows does things is a little pointless.
Why not do it? Because users don't like change. Because sometimes habit and comfort are more important than making it marginally better. Unless you can make a dramatic value addition for the user, change is probably a bad idea.
I think desktop Linux is looking good, and it's just a matter of time before it manages to carve out its niche.
I'm a big fan of Linux (and Mac and Windows, too) and I want it to be successful. I didn't write a blog post saying "Linux can't and won't succeed," I tried to point out the areas that I think are conditions for its success. I think there's a big opportunity pre-longhorn to show that we've got the right stuff. That window is closing and things will be much more difficult after that. I think it's dangerous for us to think "it's just a matter of time."
The many users who have switched to OS X haven't needed this, and in fact have moved to systems where menu choices and design philosophy are significantly different to windows.
How many? A million? Two? It certainly isn't many and Apple's GUI isn't just different, it's bitchin' slick, very fast, and very capable. If anything, this bodes ill for Linux - especially if prices drop on Apple systems. With cheaper hardware, sexy boxes, and a rockin' GUI with all the unixy goodies underneath, Apple will probably pillage a significantly larger percentage of Linux users than Windows users.
That's not the point though. Linux isn't going to get a lot of distribution from OEMs. The primary opportunities are on the corporate desktop and the home desktop. If you want more of those users, make the transition from what people are currently using (overwhelmingly Windows) as easy as possible.
The reason for this not being a problem is that things are laid out in a way that's intuitive to those who just want to perform the action, rather than perform it in the way windows does.
I think you grossly understimate user habits. Even items as simple as shortcut keys being differnt can drive off a _lot_ of people.
"n general, I agree with your points. I also don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either. "
Actually it does. I used it twice this year. It's called the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" and it's available for all XP users.
But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is that Linux isn't in a position to be delivered to most people via a new machine (just as Firefox didn't have that luxury). It's because of this fact, that Linux will probably be installed on existing systems, not from the factory on new systems, that migration is so important.
"Just sit down with linux for a bit and you will find it can do everything that Windows can do, just a bit different."
My point is that masses of people _won't_ "just sit down with linux for a bit." They'll spend a few minutes on it and decide it's not good enough and go back to Windows. My post covered a few of the reasons for this.
We're not celebrating the person who made the download. We're celebrating the community and the specific community member who helped deliver that new user to Firefox. See the affiliate program at SpreadFirefox.com http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
Jules, a big point that you're missing is that this is a celebration for that community of active participants who have helped Firefox achieve these downloads. Are open source projects supposed to discourage their communities from celebrating milestones?
I should add a minor correction, that page lists the current version, so if you got 1.0, 1.0.1, or 1.0.2 from similar links, you'll also be counted. All those links go through our mirror tool that distributes load across our dozens of mirrors. We're not counting downloads that don't go through that tool.
If your download went through the URLs listed in these links, and you're not talking about using Firefox's built-in update service, then your download was probably counted. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html
If your download did not go through one of those links, then you aren't counted.
Shouldn't we send the person who did that download some flowers or balloons or something?
Actually, we're rewarding the members of the Firefox community who helped that guy find Firefox. The big prize will go to the Spread Firefox affiliate who delivered the click that coincided with the 50 millionth download. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/fifty.html
We're not counting downloads served by the Firefox update system. Neither are we counting the millions of downloads from download.com (they actually host Firefox as well) or from other download repositories. We're also not counting people who go directly to FTP without going through our "bouncer" tool (the app that directs you to the most appropriate mirror). There's lots we're not counting here. It's not meant to be a count of users. It's just a measure of how many people use our system to download Firefox.
If a browser had a rock-solid non-volitle cache, then your history and your bookmarks could manifest out of that. Imagine that every page you've visited was stored in some reasonably light-weight database in the browser and then both auto-catagorized based on some combination of metadata grouping and bayesian analysis as well as available in a type-down filtering/auto-completing searchlike tool or tools.
You could just start typing any content or matching metadata from the site in the urlbar and it would filter on that and present options in the auto-complete pop-up list, maybe with additional ranking based on recency, frequency and user tweaking. Alternately, you could see various views of the auto-catagorization, a la iTunes, with a few simple sorting and flagging tools. Combining recency and frequency, plus user "nudging" of entries (possibly based on a simple TiVo-style thumbs up/thumbs down model) you would be able to find what you're looking for at the top of various folders/menus/treelists with more ease than today's common bookmark managers and it wouldn't require the forethough that you might one day want to find it.
More people download Firefox from the www.mozilla.org homepage than from the slightly less visible www.mozilla.org/products/firefox page that Nielson was apparently measuring.
Yes, those are a pain in the ass, but they're not pop-ups. Pop-ups are not modal to the parent window and so they make a mess (visually and in terms of usability) of your desktop. These "floaters" are modal to their content - they're attached to the site that's using them - a part of that site's content in the browser window. While I agree that they suck, they are not nearly the pain that real pop-ups were.
Actually, we also had the "unblock" functionality too (from the status bar icon). The notification bar at the top of the window only provided an additional location for the existing feature, not any new functionality.
Firefox uses Mozilla (Gecko^H^H^H^H^HNGT) layout engine and network code, so FireFox is mostly a stripped down version of the Mozilla suite.
Actually, you're wrong. Firefox isn't any kind of version of anything else. It is an application built on top of the Gecko core technologies, designed from the ground up to be a faster, cleaner, and more capable web browser for the largest possible audience.
Mozilla 1.x is a completely different application built on top of the Gecko core technologies which was designed by a half a dozen different committees to emulate a seven year old monolithic suite of internet applications for a shrinking audience
We'll be turning on the application update mechanism starting next week. Given the daunting task of updating all 27+ million people who have downloaded and are using Firefox today, we've elected to stagger the update over several days.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in order to be a successful desktop OS, linux needs to be more user-friendly. Film at 11.
In order to be successful at migrating Windows users to Linux, Linux needs to be friendlier to Windows users.
- A
Everybody seems to think "well just because it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed." We should not (and will not) bow down to these kinds of gripes. The coummunity is in the business of producing better software--not equal software.
I don't think "just becuase it doesn't work like Windows then it is flawed" and I didn't say anything like that in my blog post. I said that if you want to get Windows users to migrate to Linux, you need to make the transition as easy as possible and that often means making some features and behaviors work like Windows.
Firefox didn't adopt IE's "be overrun by pop-ups" feature but we did adopt Ald+D to focus the addressbar. We decided it was worth more to the user to give them a pop-up free browser than to try to train them to use Ctrl+L to focus the addressbar.
It's not one or the other. Pick your battles. For linux to be successful in converting Windows users, it is going to have to make smart decisions about these kinds of issues. I can see approximately zero value in reversing the OK and Cancel buttons and I can see it being a very uncomfortable re-learning curve with a lot of pain when the user gets it wrong out of habit. Where is the value there. Why throw up that difficulty.
- A
f that was required for people to switch no one would ever move to Apple.
This is the third or forth time I've seem mention of this on this thread. I think you all overestimate the number of people switching to Apple. How many users have they actually taken from Windows? A million? Two million? It certainly isn't much more than that. I know it's apples to oranges, but Firefox gets about that many IE switchers _every_week_. How did we go from one or two million users total just a couple of years ago to many tens of millions of users today? In part by making it work the way IE users expected it to work (without dropping innovative and powerful features like tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking.)
If there is a better way of doing things why not do it? I think constraining yourself to the way Windows does things is a little pointless.
Why not do it? Because users don't like change. Because sometimes habit and comfort are more important than making it marginally better. Unless you can make a dramatic value addition for the user, change is probably a bad idea.
I think desktop Linux is looking good, and it's just a matter of time before it manages to carve out its niche.
I'm a big fan of Linux (and Mac and Windows, too) and I want it to be successful. I didn't write a blog post saying "Linux can't and won't succeed," I tried to point out the areas that I think are conditions for its success. I think there's a big opportunity pre-longhorn to show that we've got the right stuff. That window is closing and things will be much more difficult after that. I think it's dangerous for us to think "it's just a matter of time."
- A
The many users who have switched to OS X haven't needed this, and in fact have moved to systems where menu choices and design philosophy are significantly different to windows.
How many? A million? Two? It certainly isn't many and Apple's GUI isn't just different, it's bitchin' slick, very fast, and very capable. If anything, this bodes ill for Linux - especially if prices drop on Apple systems. With cheaper hardware, sexy boxes, and a rockin' GUI with all the unixy goodies underneath, Apple will probably pillage a significantly larger percentage of Linux users than Windows users.
That's not the point though. Linux isn't going to get a lot of distribution from OEMs. The primary opportunities are on the corporate desktop and the home desktop. If you want more of those users, make the transition from what people are currently using (overwhelmingly Windows) as easy as possible.
The reason for this not being a problem is that things are laid out in a way that's intuitive to those who just want to perform the action, rather than perform it in the way windows does.
I think you grossly understimate user habits. Even items as simple as shortcut keys being differnt can drive off a _lot_ of people.
- A
"n general, I agree with your points. I also don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either. "
Actually it does. I used it twice this year. It's called the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" and it's available for all XP users.
But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is that Linux isn't in a position to be delivered to most people via a new machine (just as Firefox didn't have that luxury). It's because of this fact, that Linux will probably be installed on existing systems, not from the factory on new systems, that migration is so important.
- A
"Just sit down with linux for a bit and you will find it can do everything that Windows can do, just a bit different."
My point is that masses of people _won't_ "just sit down with linux for a bit." They'll spend a few minutes on it and decide it's not good enough and go back to Windows. My post covered a few of the reasons for this.
- A
We're not celebrating the person who made the download. We're celebrating the community and the specific community member who helped deliver that new user to Firefox. See the affiliate program at SpreadFirefox.com http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
- A
Jules, a big point that you're missing is that this is a celebration for that community of active participants who have helped Firefox achieve these downloads. Are open source projects supposed to discourage their communities from celebrating milestones?
- A
I should add a minor correction, that page lists the current version, so if you got 1.0, 1.0.1, or 1.0.2 from similar links, you'll also be counted. All those links go through our mirror tool that distributes load across our dozens of mirrors. We're not counting downloads that don't go through that tool.
- A
If your download went through the URLs listed in these links, and you're not talking about using Firefox's built-in update service, then your download was probably counted. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all.html
If your download did not go through one of those links, then you aren't counted.
- A
Shouldn't we send the person who did that download some flowers or balloons or something?
Actually, we're rewarding the members of the Firefox community who helped that guy find Firefox. The big prize will go to the Spread Firefox affiliate who delivered the click that coincided with the 50 millionth download. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/fifty.html
- A
We're not counting downloads served by the Firefox update system. Neither are we counting the millions of downloads from download.com (they actually host Firefox as well) or from other download repositories. We're also not counting people who go directly to FTP without going through our "bouncer" tool (the app that directs you to the most appropriate mirror). There's lots we're not counting here. It's not meant to be a count of users. It's just a measure of how many people use our system to download Firefox.
- A
But shouldn't it be 50 mil / 4 = 12.5 mil because almost all users automatically updated from 1.0.0.0 to .1, .2 and then .3?
We're not counting those users who updated via our application update mechanism.
- A
If a browser had a rock-solid non-volitle cache, then your history and your bookmarks could manifest out of that. Imagine that every page you've visited was stored in some reasonably light-weight database in the browser and then both auto-catagorized based on some combination of metadata grouping and bayesian analysis as well as available in a type-down filtering/auto-completing searchlike tool or tools.
You could just start typing any content or matching metadata from the site in the urlbar and it would filter on that and present options in the auto-complete pop-up list, maybe with additional ranking based on recency, frequency and user tweaking. Alternately, you could see various views of the auto-catagorization, a la iTunes, with a few simple sorting and flagging tools. Combining recency and frequency, plus user "nudging" of entries (possibly based on a simple TiVo-style thumbs up/thumbs down model) you would be able to find what you're looking for at the top of various folders/menus/treelists with more ease than today's common bookmark managers and it wouldn't require the forethough that you might one day want to find it.
- A
"Thing is, Firefox defaults to the Firefox website!"
Have you used Firefox? It defautls to http://google.com/firefox.
- A
More people download Firefox from the www.mozilla.org homepage than from the slightly less visible www.mozilla.org/products/firefox page that Nielson was apparently measuring.
- A
"I'm shocked that so many people use Firefox, but not the Adblock extension."
With over 40 million downloads of Firefox 1.0.x and less than 100K downloads of adblock, where's the shock?
- A
Yes, those are a pain in the ass, but they're not pop-ups. Pop-ups are not modal to the parent window and so they make a mess (visually and in terms of usability) of your desktop. These "floaters" are modal to their content - they're attached to the site that's using them - a part of that site's content in the browser window. While I agree that they suck, they are not nearly the pain that real pop-ups were.
- A
Actually, we also had the "unblock" functionality too (from the status bar icon). The notification bar at the top of the window only provided an additional location for the existing feature, not any new functionality.
- A
That sounds like you got an extension update and not a Firefox update.
- A
google:xulrunner
- A
Firefox uses Mozilla (Gecko^H^H^H^H^HNGT) layout engine and network code, so FireFox is mostly a stripped down version of the Mozilla suite.
Actually, you're wrong. Firefox isn't any kind of version of anything else. It is an application built on top of the Gecko core technologies, designed from the ground up to be a faster, cleaner, and more capable web browser for the largest possible audience.
Mozilla 1.x is a completely different application built on top of the Gecko core technologies which was designed by a half a dozen different committees to emulate a seven year old monolithic suite of internet applications for a shrinking audience
--Asa
"Firefox will be a stripped down version of Mozilla."
Maybe just a technicality, but Firefox isn't any kind of version of Mozilla. It is its own application.
--Asa
We'll be turning on the application update mechanism starting next week. Given the daunting task of updating all 27+ million people who have downloaded and are using Firefox today, we've elected to stagger the update over several days.
--Asa
first post
--Asa