Of source not. Competitive salary + benefits + infrastructure costs about 100K per year. Hiring 10 developers for several years will therefore cost several million dollars. Now cough it up so that great plan of yours can be put into effect. We're waiting!
Great idea! Now all you need to do is give the Mozilla Foundation the several million dollars needed to hire 10 new developers for the years it would take to do this.
Because the browsers themselves render pages differently, even if the pages are W3C/ECMA etc. standards-compliant.
Web standards don't dictate the exact rendering of a page. If you're trying to make the page look exactly the same in every browser, yes, it's going to be more work for every new browser you try to support. But if you accept that you don't have pixel-for-pixel control and let the browser lay out the page the way it wants, you don't need to write different code for different browsers in general. Sometimes you do have to write different code for IE because it supports so few standards and has so many layout bugs.
I wouldn't have a clue. In my five years of using Mozilla, I've never run across such a site. I do run across sites that assume that either document.all (IE) or document.layers (Netscape 4) is defined, and therefore don't work. And I do run across sites that tell me my browser is unsupported, but let me view the content anyway. But I've never seen a site that completely blocks me for no reason other than it doesn't like the browser I'm using. I think I'd write a particularly nasty message to the webmasters if I ever did.
So I think to really get some meaningful stats about installed bases for Firefox, Opera, Linux, and the like, we must survey lots of sites (1000's) from all manner of target demographics. Any other method of statistical analysis would have some bias.
Mod parent insightful! There is one other way to get unbiased statistics -- perform a meta-analysis of the different stats sources. There's only one person who seems to have attempted this, and his method looks more like SWAG than a formal statistical meta-analysis.
The code Webcore-guys generate is next to useless to KHTMl-guyes.
I think you're still overstating the problem. "Half of the patches could be merged from Apple's Webcore" doesn't sound like Apple's patches were "next to useless for KHTML developers." Maybe we should say that Apple's patches are not ideal for KHTML developers.
On the other hand, I do remember that KHTML developers were complaining about how they were being treated last month, and stated that KHTML would likely never render Acid2 properly. Once they stopped complaining and got to work on what needed to be done, it took only a month. I think this proves that sympathy is the last thing that the KHTML developers should get, as it will just give them an excuse not to do the development work they should be doing.
Of course those features won't be used on web pages until web browsers implement them. That's the whole purpose of Acid2 -- to break the chicken-and-egg deadlock. Web developers don't use these features because web browsers don't support them, and web browsers don't bother supporting them because web developers don't use them.
When all popular web browsers do a decent job of rendering Acid2, web developers can use the features that have been promised for years, but have never been delivered by browser makers. Having Safari and Konqueror display Acid2 correctly gives the other browser manufacturers added incentive to implement the needed CSS2 features.
I've always said that swinging around fragile glass filled with mercury wasn't dangerous enough. I'm glad someone finally agreed with me and added explosive fumes and fire into the mix.
It works in the latest Mozilla on Windows. And they use JavaScript for their menus, not Java. Still, if you have problems with the site, let them know. It may be a simple problem to fix that they just don't know about yet.
If you find a site like that, email the admins and let them know this is the 21st century. There are more than two browsers on the market, and they're losing at least 10% of their visitors if the site doesn't work in Gecko (Firefox), Presto (Opera), and WebCore (Safari) browsers.
I use both browsers. They each make a good alternative for sites that don't work with your primary choice of browser, as there are very few sites that work with neither. If you do run across a site that works with neither, send the webmasters an email saying that you won't be accessing their site because it doesn't work on your two favorite browsers. This is more effective than using IE or a user agent switcher, since that only convinces webmasters that "everyone uses IE," and therefore encourages IE-only sites.
They certainly do make money off their browser, just as they make money off of every other part of Windows. Think about it this way -- if IE was not included with Windows, how many people would not buy a Windows computer and choose a Mac or Linux instead? If the answer is even 0.1%, MS would stand to lose millions per year.
No. Electricity will take as many paths as it can. Adding resistors in parallel, however high the resistance and however long the wires, will decrease the overall resistance of the path and decrease the current in each wire.
Not only that, but we're talking about software [IE] that is 100% free to download.
But you previously had to pay for Windows XP to run the latest IE. Users who aren't using IE don't need to upgrade to a new OS to get the latest version of their browser. Therefore, other browsers are cutting into Microsoft's revenue.
You can see the head right in the center of this picture, with the head facing up and eyes closed. This story about being "stuck" must be just a cover-up so no one is accused of being a hit-and-run driver.
No, Mozilla uses an applications platform so that the developers can easily write cross-platform code. It's just that they also developed that platform, and it's also called Mozilla. Mozilla-the-browser (and also Firefox and Thunderbird) run on top of Mozilla-the-platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Of source not. Competitive salary + benefits + infrastructure costs about 100K per year. Hiring 10 developers for several years will therefore cost several million dollars. Now cough it up so that great plan of yours can be put into effect. We're waiting!
Great idea! Now all you need to do is give the Mozilla Foundation the several million dollars needed to hire 10 new developers for the years it would take to do this.
I wouldn't have a clue. In my five years of using Mozilla, I've never run across such a site. I do run across sites that assume that either document.all (IE) or document.layers (Netscape 4) is defined, and therefore don't work. And I do run across sites that tell me my browser is unsupported, but let me view the content anyway. But I've never seen a site that completely blocks me for no reason other than it doesn't like the browser I'm using. I think I'd write a particularly nasty message to the webmasters if I ever did.
TheCounter shows just 2% usage share for Mac OS. Combined with the 1-2% usage share for Safari reported by OneStat and 1-2% "other" browser usage reported by WebSideStory, it's hard to believe Mac OS has 16% of the installed base of desktops. Maybe the vast majority of Mac users don't use pre-installed Safari, or haven't upgraded to Mac OS X yet, or just don't browse the web nearly as much as other OS users?
On the other hand, I do remember that KHTML developers were complaining about how they were being treated last month, and stated that KHTML would likely never render Acid2 properly. Once they stopped complaining and got to work on what needed to be done, it took only a month. I think this proves that sympathy is the last thing that the KHTML developers should get, as it will just give them an excuse not to do the development work they should be doing.
When all popular web browsers do a decent job of rendering Acid2, web developers can use the features that have been promised for years, but have never been delivered by browser makers. Having Safari and Konqueror display Acid2 correctly gives the other browser manufacturers added incentive to implement the needed CSS2 features.
Huh? Deer Park is Firefox 1.1, and does use the latest build of Gecko.
No, so far only a development version of Safari passes Acid2.
Firefox doesn't have full CSS2 either. Does any browser?
Some kind soul should write a virus that holds your files hostage until Firefox is installed and is set as the default browser. Hint, hint...
I've always said that swinging around fragile glass filled with mercury wasn't dangerous enough. I'm glad someone finally agreed with me and added explosive fumes and fire into the mix.
It works in the latest Mozilla on Windows. And they use JavaScript for their menus, not Java. Still, if you have problems with the site, let them know. It may be a simple problem to fix that they just don't know about yet.
When a site refuses to support your browser(s) of choice, just take your business elsewhere, and let them know that they've lost you.
No, there aren't any forks. Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape 6/7/8 all share the same underlying core, which has never been forked.
I use both browsers. They each make a good alternative for sites that don't work with your primary choice of browser, as there are very few sites that work with neither. If you do run across a site that works with neither, send the webmasters an email saying that you won't be accessing their site because it doesn't work on your two favorite browsers. This is more effective than using IE or a user agent switcher, since that only convinces webmasters that "everyone uses IE," and therefore encourages IE-only sites.
They certainly do make money off their browser, just as they make money off of every other part of Windows. Think about it this way -- if IE was not included with Windows, how many people would not buy a Windows computer and choose a Mac or Linux instead? If the answer is even 0.1%, MS would stand to lose millions per year.
No. Electricity will take as many paths as it can. Adding resistors in parallel, however high the resistance and however long the wires, will decrease the overall resistance of the path and decrease the current in each wire.
You can see the head right in the center of this picture, with the head facing up and eyes closed. This story about being "stuck" must be just a cover-up so no one is accused of being a hit-and-run driver.
I see you found the softcore child porn easily enough. :(
No, Mozilla uses an applications platform so that the developers can easily write cross-platform code. It's just that they also developed that platform, and it's also called Mozilla. Mozilla-the-browser (and also Firefox and Thunderbird) run on top of Mozilla-the-platform.