You ignored an important part of my statement, which shows that you misinterpret what I am trying to say:
"To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself."
What I was trying to say was that Microsoft's software will always be installed by default, and to use alternative software, you have to download and install it yourself. And most newbies probably won't be bothered to do so.
In other words: I was not talking about setting a default browser for opening local HTML files and links, but for software in general.
But the default ones will still be there, and will be the default for the operating system. To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself.
"So what, exactly, is all the bitching about? Or is it just random pointless anti-MS bitching?"
It is another item on Slashdot about Microsoft being sued for abusing their monopoly situation, the actual article being run by CNN. It is also rather interesting that Microsoft are trying to pull an "it's impossible to do that" stunt again.
So what, exactly, is the problem with Slashdot continuing to post news about this interesting case, which is something which in the end will affect probably all PC users?
Way to check your facts before opening your mouth. No wonder you posted anonymously.
In case you didn't know, Opera will only send information voluntarily. Opera doesn't harvest anything. You can set up your ad preferences to receive targeted ads, but these are disabled by default. The user actually has to enter information manually, and the information cannot be traced back to the user. In addition to this, Opera has run user surveys to find out who their users are. Cydoor have simply picked this information up from Opera's web pages.
Not only that, but Opera doesn't contain a single line of Cydoor code. The ad module is 100% written by Opera's own developers, and the only thing the ad module does is to download ads. It even sends and receives information from the ad servers in plain text, so anyone can look at what is being transmitted.
But that's not all. Cydoor no longer produce spyware. There is a myth online which never seems to die, and that is that Cydoor are into spyware. They did spy on their users at one point, but not anymore.
As people have already pointed out, Opera is not open-source.
Apart from that, Opera Embedded is superior to Pocket IE simply because it has the exact same core as the desktop versions of Opera. With Pocket IE, you get a less functional version of IE. With Opera, you get everything in one small package. The same support for HTML, CSS, etc.
"And in what universe is having Opera built in as the main browser a selling point?"
It is a very strong selling point, seeing as the specs for Opera Embedded are exactly the same as the desktop counterpart. Opera 5 Embedded has the exact same core as Opera 5 Desktop. It has the exact same support for HTML, CSS, etc.
Pocket IE is basically a less functional version of desktop-IE in every respect. It support less and generally does a worse job at everything. Except being small and less functional, of course.
This is why Opera is not only a strong selling point for the device. Opera also has a strong selling point to other device manufacturers, since they basically get the same thing as the desktop version if they decide to go with Opera.
You are letting off steam, but only telling one side of the story. Where did you send your request in the first place? I've found that many expect immediate help by writing webmaster@companyname.com. That's not the case. The webmaster does not handle end-user support if the company has a lot of customers requesting help.
If you need help, make sure you contact them at the right address and include the information they need to help. If you don't, they have the right to ask you to write to the proper place and include the information they feel that they need to help.
Also remember that a lot of support personnel isn't very knowledgeable about what they are doing, and need specific information to be able to figure out what you are asking.
I've been doing support myself, for a relatively small company, but with a lot of people requesting support. The problem is that many are so lazy they expect the company to guess what they are trying to ask about and what product they are using, etc. It is frustrating. They also write to postmaster, webmaster, addresses for commercial inquiries, addresses that haven't been in use for ages, etc. and expect a correct reply immediately. Even when what they are asking for could have been found easily by searching through a FAQ or online documentation.
You are blowing this thing out of proportions. VeriSign are probably willing to help, but remember that you are dealing with human beings. If they have a lot to do, they may not be able to understand the question immediately, and therefore send you a standard reply asking you to elaborate on it and send it to the proper place.
Don't just blame the company you are trying to get help from. If you don't request help in the right place or include relevant information, it makes the job a lot harder. Just send them a reply with the information they are asking for. Be polite. That way, they will be more than happy to help.
It has been said that the customer is always right. That may be, but the customer can at least try to include relevant information and contact the right people to get help. Or make a tiny effort to help him/herself.
"You can't have security without stability, but you most certainly have stability without security."
Of course you can have security without stability. Unstable servers are always down, and a server which is down cannot be broken into, now can it?
On the other hand, if you do not have the security to protect an important server, people can break into it to take it down. Thus, the conclusion must be that stability requires good security, at least if you are as exposed as ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
"Shit, the various DOS flavours had no security model whatsoever, but I never heard anyone bitching about DOS kept crashing their spreadsheet."
Did you ever network your DOS PCs, and if you did, did anyone even bother to try to break in? Apples and oranges. By your logic, they should be running A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET on a DOS box.
Again, things are backward here. The internet does not need DNS to function. DNS relies on the internet. It's not the other way around.
Actually, they can both exist without one another, but the Internet without DNS would be hell.
Your comments are somewhat misinformed, IMHO. I am not surprised that you choose to post as an AC.
Basically, what you are saying here is that this affects the news server provider both positively and negatively. If users use less space and bandwidth, the provider can cut down on hardware/bandwidth costs. If they use more, it will be more expensive for the company.
I fail to see how this would affect Nixon's view in any way based on where he is employed. It would only do that if it was only negative for his employer. However, that is not the case.
Had Jürgen picked up where I left off and did the thing right, I would be singing an entirely different tune.
I read your text with interest, and you have many valid and important points. However, I think you are being too harsh towards Helbing. At least this is my impression. It sounds too much like Helbing did this on purpose to try to spread yEnc "by force". I don't think it should be necessary to mention Helbing at all, as it is the yEnc issue which is important. According to Helbing himself, the release of yEnc was too early, and a mistake. Indeed, Helbing might not be the one to blame at all. I don't want to start the "pointing" game and find someone to blame, but Helbing can hardly be criticized for others releasing yEnc implementations too early.
My impression is that Helbing is aware of these issues, and that he really wants to do something about it. Perhaps it is still time to do this "the proper way" and create a well thought-out standard? Currently, updates to yEnc will cause problems for developers, but there is nothing saying that yEnc will continue to change forever.
What we are seeing right now is basically a massive public beta test, and various newsreader are adding support for the current version of yEnc. Perhaps this beta test will end one day, and we will have a mature version of yEnc which will have addressed all or most of the issues you point out?
Communicate with Helbing and continue to point out flaws in yEnc. I am sure he is more than willing to work on addressing these issues.
You can't stop yEnc now, but we can all help it mature into something which doesn't cause all these problems.
My last post sounded a bit more harsh towards Juergen Helbing and what I called "shotgun tactics" than it was supposed to. Helbing has said that he never intended yEnc to be spread this way. A mail has been published on Forte's web site, where Helbing explains that this was not his intention:
The first yEnc draft was never meant to be the base of a fundamental change to Usenet (this was a discussion proposal). And all I can do today is to apologize for the mess I did create with it.
Thanks to the AC who posted this link in another comment.
Nevertheless, the way yEnc has been spread is not beneficial. But it can't really be "blamed" on any single person as such.
Actually, I find Agent to be easier to use than Xnews. But that's probably because I use Agent regularly and haven't tried Xnews much. Perhaps this is what you meant, only that you have used Xnews more?
Just use the software which best suits your needs:)
I've been considering having a longer "test drive" of Xnews, though, also to test the yEnc support. It's just so hard to get used to new software!
Regarding the yEnc issue, from what I've read so far, I agree with Jeremy Nixon's criticism of yEnc. It should have been planned better and made a proper standard, and only then be used, rather than the "shotgun tactics" used to force the spreading of yEnc perhaps without considering the potential consequences. Then again, I am somewhat of a pessimist. Most people probably won't have any problems. We'll see what the future brings.
The sad part is that it is too obvious. It follows the "Trolling HOWTO" too closely. Start off by building credibility, then gradually move over to nonsense. Unfortunately for this troll, he wasn't very credible to begin with. Even reading the first few sentences, the troll was blatantly obvious. And it's an AC. Oh well.
"Mozilla might have slightly better CSS, but their DOM implementation sucks balls."
To my knowledge, Mozilla actually has better support for W3C DOM, but if you have any hard facts, I am willing to see them.
I happen to work extensively with browsers, and we have an internal document listing the various DOM components. This table shows that Mozilla has support for more parts of DOM than IE5. I'm afraid I haven't looked at IE6 yet.
But don't take my word on it, there are probably a few "browser charts" out there that list support for various standards in the different browsers.
Yes, exactly! This doesn't force webmasters to create a new set of pages for each browser. Now they can actually do it *once*, and it will work in most browsers. IE has decent enough support for standards in addition to it proprietary extensions, remember.
This will actually benefit webmasters as well as open standards supporters who want "one web, any browser".
Please understand that this benefits both AOL and users of alternative browsers/software. AOL get a browser they have full control over and can do more with. People who support open standards get a giant company on their side.
There is no hypocrisy. People aren't cheering over AOL, but over Gecko being put to good use, and actually making a difference!
"Because I want that content and I can't get it. Sure, its not my fault that I can't get the content, after all, they've written bad HTML but from an end-users perspective that isn't the issue. They want that information and their browser won't give it to them. Period."
Conversely, I can say that they want that information, but the site fails to deliver it to them (because it doesn't show up "in AOL"). So they go elsewhere instead.
It could actually strike both ways, but since they are "using AOL", my guess is that most people will think there is something wrong with the site and not with AOL.
If the user doesn't go elsewhere, he or she might write the webmaster and ask "what's wrong with your page all of a sudden"? The webmaster will then perhaps say that "we are not compatible with AOL, you have to download IE". It is far easier to just open another page than to start downloading the latest version of IE. (Yes, IE might already be installed on the PC, but the regular AOL user might not know that there's a world outside AOL - believe me, I've seen it many times).
"This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind."
Or they all mail the webmaster and then get angry because they are told to use something "not AOL", which is basically bad business for the site.
"What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly."
It won't happen this way. You see, Mozilla is able to render most pages, and if anything is missing, it is often menus used for navigation (because they are based on proprietary IE-extensions). What happens when an AOL user sees such a site? He sees the contents, but has no idea how to browse the site. Who does he blame? The site of course! He thinks the designer of the site is silly not to have placed proper menus in place for navigation. So he takes his business elsewhere.
After all, he is using AOL and everything, so it must be the site's fault!:)
First, version numbers don't matter, especially not for an open-source, free-as-in-beer project.
I think it is great that the Mozilla developers have taken their time to come up with a quality browser, rather than rushing it to the market. Mozilla became usable long ago (although it is not my primary browser, I use it extensively for testing (IE is not my primary browser either)), and it keeps improving all the time.
You also write:
"having money behind a project must be nice..."
If you are referring to the fact that AOL are now roughing up the browser market, it isn't mainly due to money I think. It is rather due to a large customer base.
Re:Missing a bit of history (Re:Corante article)
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
To quote a post in this very story which puts this more elegantly than I am able to:
"Yes, but what's the real significance? People aren't likely to go to Google and search for "dumb motherfucker" and laugh to see "George W. Bush" displayed, unless they're told to try it. They're going to search for "George W. Bush", and doing so spectacularly fails to produce a single result titled "dumb motherfucker"."
"It was a glitch, and a funny one, but it wasn't even remotely exploitable."
I probably shouldn't respond to this (hook, line sinker), but here goes... One never knows, someone might actually believe these ACs spreading misinformation...
-"How w3c compliant is mozilla?"
Far better than IE. Mozilla has excellent support for W3C's recommendations.
-"unless they've made some *SERIOUS* improvements, it's still netscape with a skin"
No, Mozilla is written completely from scratch, and has done away with Netscape 4's proprietary object model among other things. Anyone claiming that Mozilla is "Netscape with a skin" obviously does not know what Mozilla is.
-" As far as I've seen mozilla is just netscape that runs slower. Have they improved compliance over the pathetic netscape browser?"
Mozilla is a completely new browser! No, it is not "just Netscape", and standards compliance is better than most other browsers out there.
I think you know all this already, AC... If not, go to mozilla.org and see for yourself.
Basically, many webmasters are ignorant, or even arrogant enough to ignore standards compliance. Those who fail to see that standards compliance is the way forward, will have painted themselves into a corner. The cost of completely re-doing a site which has been carefully written specifically for IE and all its non-standard extensions and quirks, could potentially lead to more dot.com deaths. This is a good thing! People who don't care enough to inform themselves don't deserve to do business. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but being an avid user of alternative browsers, I am tired of fighting with arrogant web designers who don't understand what they are doing.
Finally, we will see who has the foresight or the insight to survive this.
Grim predictions aside (I may have been a bit negative above), this naturally benefits users of alternative browsers. Mozilla and Opera will both be able to display more pages than before, and their user base will probably grow rapidly because of this. After all, the feature sets of these browsers are far superior to IE from a user's point of view (disclaimer: This is a personal opinion based on my personal preference. Ok? Please, no browser wars).
Note that I am not even bashing IE here. The good news is that this can be cheaper for online companies in the long run, since it will pay off to write standards compliant code, rather than writing specifically for only certain browsers. MSIE 6 has decent standards compliance. The problem is the proprietary extensions used so extensively instead of the W3C counterparts.
This becomes even more important now that handheld devices are becoming more and more popular. We will see a significant increase in the number of devices used by consumers, and these devices will be using alternative browsers as well.
It basically boils down to this: The browser market is diversifying, and if AOL decides to go with Gecko, this will speed up this process. It will not be a nice transition. Many may find that they have major problems due to "IE-centric" code on their sites.
AOL may not be doing this because they desperately want to get rid of IE or because they want to support alternative browsers (who knows, there may be many reasons, perhaps these play in as well). Nevertheless, for once, it would seem that the consumer - the user - benefits from such a drastic move.
If AOL are indeed planning to move from MSIE to Gecko, that is...
You aren't really being very specific. I get the impression that you don't really know what to write, or that you don't know what you are talking about. Is this correct?
This is not intended to offend you, and the question is completely honest. I hope you won't take this the wrong way.
"otherwise they wouldn't have has a Gnutella client all developed and ready for release within a few days."
They didn't have an all new client. They simply took the source code for Gnucleus, which is an open-source Gnutella client, and changed a few small things, such as replacing the graphics and so on.
So it actually looks like this came as a surprise for Musiccity. Otherwise, they would have had a better client available. Frankly, the current (temporary) version of Morpheus is sub-par.
Slashdot Mirror
"To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself."
What I was trying to say was that Microsoft's software will always be installed by default, and to use alternative software, you have to download and install it yourself. And most newbies probably won't be bothered to do so.
In other words: I was not talking about setting a default browser for opening local HTML files and links, but for software in general.
You already CAN use an alternate IM system.
You already CAN use another media player."
But the default ones will still be there, and will be the default for the operating system. To get something else, you have to download and install it yourself.
"So what, exactly, is all the bitching about? Or is it just random pointless anti-MS bitching?"
It is another item on Slashdot about Microsoft being sued for abusing their monopoly situation, the actual article being run by CNN. It is also rather interesting that Microsoft are trying to pull an "it's impossible to do that" stunt again.
So what, exactly, is the problem with Slashdot continuing to post news about this interesting case, which is something which in the end will affect probably all PC users?
In case you didn't know, Opera will only send information voluntarily. Opera doesn't harvest anything. You can set up your ad preferences to receive targeted ads, but these are disabled by default. The user actually has to enter information manually, and the information cannot be traced back to the user. In addition to this, Opera has run user surveys to find out who their users are. Cydoor have simply picked this information up from Opera's web pages.
Not only that, but Opera doesn't contain a single line of Cydoor code. The ad module is 100% written by Opera's own developers, and the only thing the ad module does is to download ads. It even sends and receives information from the ad servers in plain text, so anyone can look at what is being transmitted.
But that's not all. Cydoor no longer produce spyware. There is a myth online which never seems to die, and that is that Cydoor are into spyware. They did spy on their users at one point, but not anymore.
Your lies about Opera are, frankly, disgusting. You can even see what Opera writes about this and read exactly what the ad module in Opera actually does. But you don't care about facts, do you?
Gnome+Opera is a great combination, despite Opera using Qt!
Apart from that, Opera Embedded is superior to Pocket IE simply because it has the exact same core as the desktop versions of Opera. With Pocket IE, you get a less functional version of IE. With Opera, you get everything in one small package. The same support for HTML, CSS, etc.
It is a very strong selling point, seeing as the specs for Opera Embedded are exactly the same as the desktop counterpart. Opera 5 Embedded has the exact same core as Opera 5 Desktop. It has the exact same support for HTML, CSS, etc.
Pocket IE is basically a less functional version of desktop-IE in every respect. It support less and generally does a worse job at everything. Except being small and less functional, of course.
This is why Opera is not only a strong selling point for the device. Opera also has a strong selling point to other device manufacturers, since they basically get the same thing as the desktop version if they decide to go with Opera.
It can't?
Anyway, how is this hypocrisy? It is only hypocrisy if they criticize others of something they are doing themselves.
But are they actually doing that?
If you need help, make sure you contact them at the right address and include the information they need to help. If you don't, they have the right to ask you to write to the proper place and include the information they feel that they need to help.
Also remember that a lot of support personnel isn't very knowledgeable about what they are doing, and need specific information to be able to figure out what you are asking.
I've been doing support myself, for a relatively small company, but with a lot of people requesting support. The problem is that many are so lazy they expect the company to guess what they are trying to ask about and what product they are using, etc. It is frustrating. They also write to postmaster, webmaster, addresses for commercial inquiries, addresses that haven't been in use for ages, etc. and expect a correct reply immediately. Even when what they are asking for could have been found easily by searching through a FAQ or online documentation.
You are blowing this thing out of proportions. VeriSign are probably willing to help, but remember that you are dealing with human beings. If they have a lot to do, they may not be able to understand the question immediately, and therefore send you a standard reply asking you to elaborate on it and send it to the proper place.
Don't just blame the company you are trying to get help from. If you don't request help in the right place or include relevant information, it makes the job a lot harder. Just send them a reply with the information they are asking for. Be polite. That way, they will be more than happy to help.
It has been said that the customer is always right. That may be, but the customer can at least try to include relevant information and contact the right people to get help. Or make a tiny effort to help him/herself.
Of course you can have security without stability. Unstable servers are always down, and a server which is down cannot be broken into, now can it?
On the other hand, if you do not have the security to protect an important server, people can break into it to take it down. Thus, the conclusion must be that stability requires good security, at least if you are as exposed as ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
"Shit, the various DOS flavours had no security model whatsoever, but I never heard anyone bitching about DOS kept crashing their spreadsheet."
Did you ever network your DOS PCs, and if you did, did anyone even bother to try to break in? Apples and oranges. By your logic, they should be running A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET on a DOS box.
Again, things are backward here. The internet does not need DNS to function. DNS relies on the internet. It's not the other way around.
Actually, they can both exist without one another, but the Internet without DNS would be hell.
Your comments are somewhat misinformed, IMHO. I am not surprised that you choose to post as an AC.
I fail to see how this would affect Nixon's view in any way based on where he is employed. It would only do that if it was only negative for his employer. However, that is not the case.
I read your text with interest, and you have many valid and important points. However, I think you are being too harsh towards Helbing. At least this is my impression. It sounds too much like Helbing did this on purpose to try to spread yEnc "by force". I don't think it should be necessary to mention Helbing at all, as it is the yEnc issue which is important. According to Helbing himself, the release of yEnc was too early, and a mistake. Indeed, Helbing might not be the one to blame at all. I don't want to start the "pointing" game and find someone to blame, but Helbing can hardly be criticized for others releasing yEnc implementations too early.
My impression is that Helbing is aware of these issues, and that he really wants to do something about it. Perhaps it is still time to do this "the proper way" and create a well thought-out standard? Currently, updates to yEnc will cause problems for developers, but there is nothing saying that yEnc will continue to change forever.
What we are seeing right now is basically a massive public beta test, and various newsreader are adding support for the current version of yEnc. Perhaps this beta test will end one day, and we will have a mature version of yEnc which will have addressed all or most of the issues you point out?
Communicate with Helbing and continue to point out flaws in yEnc. I am sure he is more than willing to work on addressing these issues.
You can't stop yEnc now, but we can all help it mature into something which doesn't cause all these problems.
Don't you agree?
Thanks to the AC who posted this link in another comment.
Nevertheless, the way yEnc has been spread is not beneficial. But it can't really be "blamed" on any single person as such.
Just use the software which best suits your needs :)
I've been considering having a longer "test drive" of Xnews, though, also to test the yEnc support. It's just so hard to get used to new software!
Regarding the yEnc issue, from what I've read so far, I agree with Jeremy Nixon's criticism of yEnc. It should have been planned better and made a proper standard, and only then be used, rather than the "shotgun tactics" used to force the spreading of yEnc perhaps without considering the potential consequences. Then again, I am somewhat of a pessimist. Most people probably won't have any problems. We'll see what the future brings.
The sad part is that it is too obvious. It follows the "Trolling HOWTO" too closely. Start off by building credibility, then gradually move over to nonsense. Unfortunately for this troll, he wasn't very credible to begin with. Even reading the first few sentences, the troll was blatantly obvious. And it's an AC. Oh well.
To my knowledge, Mozilla actually has better support for W3C DOM, but if you have any hard facts, I am willing to see them.
I happen to work extensively with browsers, and we have an internal document listing the various DOM components. This table shows that Mozilla has support for more parts of DOM than IE5. I'm afraid I haven't looked at IE6 yet.
But don't take my word on it, there are probably a few "browser charts" out there that list support for various standards in the different browsers.
This will actually benefit webmasters as well as open standards supporters who want "one web, any browser".
There is no hypocrisy. People aren't cheering over AOL, but over Gecko being put to good use, and actually making a difference!
Conversely, I can say that they want that information, but the site fails to deliver it to them (because it doesn't show up "in AOL"). So they go elsewhere instead.
It could actually strike both ways, but since they are "using AOL", my guess is that most people will think there is something wrong with the site and not with AOL.
If the user doesn't go elsewhere, he or she might write the webmaster and ask "what's wrong with your page all of a sudden"? The webmaster will then perhaps say that "we are not compatible with AOL, you have to download IE". It is far easier to just open another page than to start downloading the latest version of IE. (Yes, IE might already be installed on the PC, but the regular AOL user might not know that there's a world outside AOL - believe me, I've seen it many times).
"This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind."
Or they all mail the webmaster and then get angry because they are told to use something "not AOL", which is basically bad business for the site.
It won't happen this way. You see, Mozilla is able to render most pages, and if anything is missing, it is often menus used for navigation (because they are based on proprietary IE-extensions). What happens when an AOL user sees such a site? He sees the contents, but has no idea how to browse the site. Who does he blame? The site of course! He thinks the designer of the site is silly not to have placed proper menus in place for navigation. So he takes his business elsewhere.
After all, he is using AOL and everything, so it must be the site's fault! :)
I think it is great that the Mozilla developers have taken their time to come up with a quality browser, rather than rushing it to the market. Mozilla became usable long ago (although it is not my primary browser, I use it extensively for testing (IE is not my primary browser either)), and it keeps improving all the time.
You also write:
"having money behind a project must be nice..."
If you are referring to the fact that AOL are now roughing up the browser market, it isn't mainly due to money I think. It is rather due to a large customer base.
"Yes, but what's the real significance? People aren't likely to go to Google and search for "dumb motherfucker" and laugh to see "George W. Bush" displayed, unless they're told to try it. They're going to search for "George W. Bush", and doing so spectacularly fails to produce a single result titled "dumb motherfucker"."
"It was a glitch, and a funny one, but it wasn't even remotely exploitable."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=29395&cid=3157 634
All credits go to mblase.
It is not a beta for the 9210, it is an early leaked beta version of Opera for the 9210i. It doesn't even run properly on the 9210, apparently.
-"How w3c compliant is mozilla?"
Far better than IE. Mozilla has excellent support for W3C's recommendations.
-"unless they've made some *SERIOUS* improvements, it's still netscape with a skin"
No, Mozilla is written completely from scratch, and has done away with Netscape 4's proprietary object model among other things. Anyone claiming that Mozilla is "Netscape with a skin" obviously does not know what Mozilla is.
-" As far as I've seen mozilla is just netscape that runs slower. Have they improved compliance over the pathetic netscape browser?"
Mozilla is a completely new browser! No, it is not "just Netscape", and standards compliance is better than most other browsers out there.
I think you know all this already, AC... If not, go to mozilla.org and see for yourself.
Basically, many webmasters are ignorant, or even arrogant enough to ignore standards compliance. Those who fail to see that standards compliance is the way forward, will have painted themselves into a corner. The cost of completely re-doing a site which has been carefully written specifically for IE and all its non-standard extensions and quirks, could potentially lead to more dot.com deaths. This is a good thing! People who don't care enough to inform themselves don't deserve to do business. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but being an avid user of alternative browsers, I am tired of fighting with arrogant web designers who don't understand what they are doing.
Finally, we will see who has the foresight or the insight to survive this.
Grim predictions aside (I may have been a bit negative above), this naturally benefits users of alternative browsers. Mozilla and Opera will both be able to display more pages than before, and their user base will probably grow rapidly because of this. After all, the feature sets of these browsers are far superior to IE from a user's point of view (disclaimer: This is a personal opinion based on my personal preference. Ok? Please, no browser wars).
Note that I am not even bashing IE here. The good news is that this can be cheaper for online companies in the long run, since it will pay off to write standards compliant code, rather than writing specifically for only certain browsers. MSIE 6 has decent standards compliance. The problem is the proprietary extensions used so extensively instead of the W3C counterparts.
This becomes even more important now that handheld devices are becoming more and more popular. We will see a significant increase in the number of devices used by consumers, and these devices will be using alternative browsers as well.
It basically boils down to this: The browser market is diversifying, and if AOL decides to go with Gecko, this will speed up this process. It will not be a nice transition. Many may find that they have major problems due to "IE-centric" code on their sites.
AOL may not be doing this because they desperately want to get rid of IE or because they want to support alternative browsers (who knows, there may be many reasons, perhaps these play in as well). Nevertheless, for once, it would seem that the consumer - the user - benefits from such a drastic move.
If AOL are indeed planning to move from MSIE to Gecko, that is...
This is not intended to offend you, and the question is completely honest. I hope you won't take this the wrong way.
They didn't have an all new client. They simply took the source code for Gnucleus, which is an open-source Gnutella client, and changed a few small things, such as replacing the graphics and so on.
So it actually looks like this came as a surprise for Musiccity. Otherwise, they would have had a better client available. Frankly, the current (temporary) version of Morpheus is sub-par.