You are giving people the wrong idea! There is no such thing as absolute security, only levels of security. How do you know someone didn't tamper with the repository of certificates or keys?
At least by comparing the computed MD5sum from a copy of Firefox with the MD5sum on the mozilla.org website, you would make it much harder for an employee at the mirror site to alter Firefox without your knowledge.
That's what OpenOffice.org uses. The article is less about trusting Firefox, and more about trusting every mirror to provide an unhacked copy of Firefox. How do we know the mirror wasn't broken into and the mirrored copy tampered with? It's a valid point.
Yes, the fact that 90% of users use IE has far more to do with complacency than with people making individual, conscious, rational decisions. Now you're getting the idea!
I don't think they're saying that no one chooses IE. They're saying it's not the case that 90% of users choose to use IE, as Mr. Schare implies. Many, if not most, people use IE because it's preinstalled on their computer, and they don't know about the alternatives.
Freeware programs written for Windows are not part of Windows. The point is that Windows costs money, and IE is an essential part of Windows, and therefore IE costs money. When I bought a car it came with a radio and tape deck, but I'm sure not going to claim I got them for free!
In Mozilla, I can go to about:cache and use Find in This Page... or the find-as-you-type feature. There also a request (bug 255544) to add sorting features to about:cache in Firefox.
I don't believe I've ever seen IE itself crash. But when I was using Windows 2000 beta with IE 5.0, crashes were frequent. As soon as I upgraded to IE 5.5, crashes almost vanished. Remember, IE is part of the operating system on Windows, so any crash you experience might be an IE crash whether you realize it or not. And when Firefox crashes, it doesn't tend to take the whole OS down with it.
The Mozilla Suite and Firefox both use Gecko for rendering. There is talk about porting core parts of Firefox's user interface back to the Suite (bug 255807), but that has nothing to do with page rendering.
"Security through obscurity" refers to a cryptographic algorithm that relies on security by keeping its algorithm secret. It does not mean that keeping any kind of secrets is not a valid form of security. After all, even with modern cryptographic algorithms, you still need to keep your private key secret don't you?
I never said anything about contacting web developers and sites. I said that your attitude towards using IE because it works with nearly everything is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe it, they continue to make it reality. If enough people refuse to believe they should use IE, they make use of other browsers a reality.
OneStat's counter always correctly detects Opera, even when Opera is set to identify itself as another browser. Opera always contains "Opera" in its UA string, so it's trivial to detect properly.
The real problem is supporting all the 'smaller' browsers too. Opera, Safari and IE 5.5 for the Mac (which some idiots still use...) all have their little chinks and quirks too that you have to take into account. Sometimes there's simply no time to get it all looking perfectly...
You have a perfectly valid point. Here's what you can do when this situation arises: Submit a bug report, including the URL of a publicly accessible page that demonstrates the problem. The fact that there's an actual page that demonstrates a bug in a browser gives browser manufacturers an incentive to fix the bug. If enough web developers reported these bugs instead of working around them, we'd have browsers that would be much easier to develop for.
Unfortunately, some web developers and PHBs look only at the stats for the site when determining what browser to test in. Some sites have been tested only in IE for years, and don't work in Firefox due to relying heavily on proprietary IE features. Of course, when users of non-IE browsers visit a site like this, they see it doesn't work and quickly leave, never to return. This in turn results in 98% of visitors to the site using IE. When the PHBs and web developers see these stats, they conclude that it makes sense to continue testing in IE only. We also need to publicize the danger of this self-fulfilling prophesy to ensure that sites get fixed to work in non-IE browsers.
While it is a nice theory to have everyone using 'standard HTML', it is just a theory. Standards, despite being well documented, are not always adhered to the letter of the law.
Exactly. Mozilla already implements many quirks that allow it to render non-standard pages. To name just a few, there's quirks mode, <marquee> support, MIME type sniffing, document.all support, innerHTML support, and correction of serious structural HTML errors. Mozilla is not some standards Nazi organization that demands everyone follow the standards to the letter. In fact, I'd estimate that Mozilla renders at least 99.9% of pages correctly despite the fact that 99% of them don't follow the standards.
The point is that unless all web developers bother to test in some browsers other than Internet Explorer, some will be unwittingly relying on IE's particular bugs, quirks, and proprietary features. It's these developers that are creating the 0.1% of pages that won't work in Mozilla. The only way Mozilla can render all these pages as well as IE does is to exactly reverse engineer IE down to every last bug. This is simply not a realistic task for a company with an R&D budget less that Microsoft's. Adapting to the world to that level is not an option.
What is a realistic option is for all web developers to test in a variety of browsers. Actually, I've found that ensuring my pages are valid HTML and CSS makes them work in more browsers with less effort than testing them in many different browsers. Following the standards is actually far easier than any alternative, and also ensures that sites continue to work in future browsers.
Now you have a choice: (1) You can use IE and be a part of the +/- 90% of IE users that visit sites and give web developers an excuse to test only in IE, or (2) you use any other browser and be part of the +/- 10% of users putting pressure on web developers to adhere more closely to standards to help make their sites work on other browsers.
To promote an open web where users can choose to use whatever browser they want. All too often these past few years, users have been "forced" to use IE to view some sites. If enough users use any other browser, that puts pressure on web developers to test their sites on some browser other than IE/Win. With IE usage starting to drop below 90% for the first time in years, we're getting close to the critical mass for this to happen.
Both Firefox and Mozilla use the Gecko browser engine. Most bug fixes and enhancements apply to the engine, which is shared by both browsers. There is no separate branch for Mozilla. The very latest versions of both browsers use the trunk version of Gecko. The only development that Firefox gets that Mozilla doesn't automatically get is user interface changes. In early 2005, Firefox 1.1 and Mozilla 1.8 will be released with the latest version of Gecko.
Slashdot Mirror
You are giving people the wrong idea! There is no such thing as absolute security, only levels of security. How do you know someone didn't tamper with the repository of certificates or keys?
At least by comparing the computed MD5sum from a copy of Firefox with the MD5sum on the mozilla.org website, you would make it much harder for an employee at the mirror site to alter Firefox without your knowledge.
That's what OpenOffice.org uses. The article is less about trusting Firefox, and more about trusting every mirror to provide an unhacked copy of Firefox. How do we know the mirror wasn't broken into and the mirrored copy tampered with? It's a valid point.
Yes, the fact that 90% of users use IE has far more to do with complacency than with people making individual, conscious, rational decisions. Now you're getting the idea!
I don't think they're saying that no one chooses IE. They're saying it's not the case that 90% of users choose to use IE, as Mr. Schare implies. Many, if not most, people use IE because it's preinstalled on their computer, and they don't know about the alternatives.
I think the idea was to buy a new computer with Windows XP preinstalled.
Freeware programs written for Windows are not part of Windows. The point is that Windows costs money, and IE is an essential part of Windows, and therefore IE costs money. When I bought a car it came with a radio and tape deck, but I'm sure not going to claim I got them for free!
Don't mind the extra U. It's there to break up the fight between the I and J.
Here's the alphabet for reference:
ABCDEFGHIUJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
You might want to learn it. It makes using phone books and stuff easier.
In Mozilla, I can go to about:cache and use Find in This Page... or the find-as-you-type feature. There also a request (bug 255544) to add sorting features to about:cache in Firefox.
I don't believe I've ever seen IE itself crash. But when I was using Windows 2000 beta with IE 5.0, crashes were frequent. As soon as I upgraded to IE 5.5, crashes almost vanished. Remember, IE is part of the operating system on Windows, so any crash you experience might be an IE crash whether you realize it or not. And when Firefox crashes, it doesn't tend to take the whole OS down with it.
The Mozilla Suite and Firefox both use Gecko for rendering. There is talk about porting core parts of Firefox's user interface back to the Suite (bug 255807), but that has nothing to do with page rendering.
"Security through obscurity" refers to a cryptographic algorithm that relies on security by keeping its algorithm secret. It does not mean that keeping any kind of secrets is not a valid form of security. After all, even with modern cryptographic algorithms, you still need to keep your private key secret don't you?
They've been working on building it in for years. Just download an SVG enabled build. Maybe you can find one most easily in the MozillaZine forums.
I never said anything about contacting web developers and sites. I said that your attitude towards using IE because it works with nearly everything is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe it, they continue to make it reality. If enough people refuse to believe they should use IE, they make use of other browsers a reality.
That's supposed to be Firefox 0.10, aka Firefox 1.0PR.
OneStat's counter always correctly detects Opera, even when Opera is set to identify itself as another browser. Opera always contains "Opera" in its UA string, so it's trivial to detect properly.
But just because you didn't test your site in a particular browser, does that mean it makes sense to actively block visitors who use that browser?
Unfortunately, some web developers and PHBs look only at the stats for the site when determining what browser to test in. Some sites have been tested only in IE for years, and don't work in Firefox due to relying heavily on proprietary IE features. Of course, when users of non-IE browsers visit a site like this, they see it doesn't work and quickly leave, never to return. This in turn results in 98% of visitors to the site using IE. When the PHBs and web developers see these stats, they conclude that it makes sense to continue testing in IE only. We also need to publicize the danger of this self-fulfilling prophesy to ensure that sites get fixed to work in non-IE browsers.
The point is that unless all web developers bother to test in some browsers other than Internet Explorer, some will be unwittingly relying on IE's particular bugs, quirks, and proprietary features. It's these developers that are creating the 0.1% of pages that won't work in Mozilla. The only way Mozilla can render all these pages as well as IE does is to exactly reverse engineer IE down to every last bug. This is simply not a realistic task for a company with an R&D budget less that Microsoft's. Adapting to the world to that level is not an option.
What is a realistic option is for all web developers to test in a variety of browsers. Actually, I've found that ensuring my pages are valid HTML and CSS makes them work in more browsers with less effort than testing them in many different browsers. Following the standards is actually far easier than any alternative, and also ensures that sites continue to work in future browsers.
Now you have a choice: (1) You can use IE and be a part of the +/- 90% of IE users that visit sites and give web developers an excuse to test only in IE, or (2) you use any other browser and be part of the +/- 10% of users putting pressure on web developers to adhere more closely to standards to help make their sites work on other browsers.
Yes, Firefox is to blame for the errors. The bug is fixed on the trunk, so Slashdot will render correctly in Firefox 1.1 due out early next year.
To promote an open web where users can choose to use whatever browser they want. All too often these past few years, users have been "forced" to use IE to view some sites. If enough users use any other browser, that puts pressure on web developers to test their sites on some browser other than IE/Win. With IE usage starting to drop below 90% for the first time in years, we're getting close to the critical mass for this to happen.
Of course, when TechTV asked users what features they'd like to see in IE, the most asked for features were tabs and popup blocking. The real reason IE doesn't have tabs is because it's just too darn hard for Microsoft to add, according to an MS Windows Exec!
Both Firefox and Mozilla use the Gecko browser engine. Most bug fixes and enhancements apply to the engine, which is shared by both browsers. There is no separate branch for Mozilla. The very latest versions of both browsers use the trunk version of Gecko. The only development that Firefox gets that Mozilla doesn't automatically get is user interface changes. In early 2005, Firefox 1.1 and Mozilla 1.8 will be released with the latest version of Gecko.