I don't see myself as less or more normal than the next person. But when I heard the hype about Firefox, I went looking to find out why. I won't blindly switch companies/browsers/brands on the say so of one or two "third person"s.
And I tend to update my software on a regular basis. Have you ever updated Firefox? Noticed that it popped two tabs when it was done, your "start page" and "Congratulations, your firefox is updated"? It's not that easy to miss that FF had tabs.
And IE had an "add on" that added tabs that was popular for a while, surely people might've noticed?:P
If the browser wars exist only in dwindling niche markets, why does MS continue to improve Internet Explorer?
And if Firefox is losing the war, and "few understand" it, why are they continuing to creep upwards in market share? Why are there a number of Firefox derivatives? Why are the other browsers continuing to play catchup? (tabbed browsing, addons, etc)
I don't think MS abandoned IE, but they were resting on their laurels. IE was still dominant since it was on 90% of all the desktops and laptops out there.
I don't see how it's silly to think it's "amazing" that a company with very little behind it is able to beat it's competitors, and continually catch up on the #1... when it's competitors have more clout and money.
And you keep saying "funded by Google" like it's a bad thing, and conveniently forget that there are other corporations that both provided the seed money for the project and continue to donate. Google was not part of those who provided the initial money to get things rolling.
And as someone has pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Google created Chrome... so are they now "funding" their competition?
While having 100+ tabs open is a bit nutsy in my opinion, if you are working on several things at the same time, it's more efficient to leave the tabs open. It's the same habit with programs on the computer. Sure, I could just leave open one program at a time, but during the course of the day (I do desktop publishing at a printing company) I use Outlook (for email), Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Acrobat, Distiller, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, several different Windows Explorer windows (different parts of the network), Firefox and Notepad. It's a pain in the ass to keep opening and closing programs and windows, when I can leave them open and ALT-TAB back and forth. As it is, I usually leave Acrobat, two explorer windows, Outlook and Distiller open.
Some folks probably find it more efficient to leave tabs open if they're going to be reading/referencing the material in them.
How is it not? How big is the Mozilla Foundation compared to Microsoft? 75 million dollars compared to what, billions, in revenue?
And Firefox did not have the advantage of being built in natively on 90% of the worlds desktops and laptops.
Heck, Firefox is bigger than the browser that comes on the other ~9% of the worlds desktops and laptops, Safari.
I'd call that a success story, wouldn't you?
Nonprofitness is a tax legal construct. No one has said nonprofitness means they don't make any money, or imply such a thing. It implies more that they are not giant corporations with billions to toss around, of a small group of employees trying to compete with workforces numbering in the tens of thousands.
I've always used ctrl-t to open new, blank tabs, and ctrl-leftclick to open links in new tabs. And since tabbed browsing has been hyped up for ages, I don't see how people could not know.:P
Sure. But there's also the fact that you can browse while "offline", as well, there are settings for when you only want to see "changes" to web pages. There may be addons that are doing things in the background, as well, Firefox might be checking for updates. Tons of things happen that may be cause for the HD to be spun.
Not saying there isn't a bug, and I dislike having my HD spun for no reason as well...
"The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations as a source of funding. Along with AOL's initial $2 million donation, Mitch Kapor gave $300,000 to the organization at its launch. The group has tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
It is still open source. Not sure where hackers come into this. It accepts donations, which is not the same as funding.
And nonprofit does not mean they don't "make money off firefox".
"A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization
While I would argue that trying to base cause and effect off of one incident is a bit off, I would also argue using a drilling technique blamed for causing an earthquake in one of the most earthquake prone areas on the West Coast is nuts.:P
It is possible that the plane was hit by a meteor. There are many, many pieces of debris falling into Earth's atmosphere every day.
But it begs the question: If meteors are capable of catastrophic damage to an aircraft, why do we not see frequent occurrences of meteor damage that is not catastrophic? Planes are regularly damaged by birds and thunderstorms, and both phenomena have and do take down aircraft (the Hudson river crash being a recent example of a bird strike). We should be seeing minor damage done by meteors before we're seeing aircraft lost to meteors.
Thunderstorms, computer glitches and bird strikes are much more likely to be the culprits here, not to mention human error.
There's even the suggestion of a bomb having brought down the aircraft. Again, this is more likely than a meteor.
But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever find out for sure, if they can't get the black boxes back.
Meteors... Heh, there's way more important things to worry about when flying.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see myself as less or more normal than the next person. But when I heard the hype about Firefox, I went looking to find out why. I won't blindly switch companies/browsers/brands on the say so of one or two "third person"s.
:P
And I tend to update my software on a regular basis. Have you ever updated Firefox? Noticed that it popped two tabs when it was done, your "start page" and "Congratulations, your firefox is updated"? It's not that easy to miss that FF had tabs.
And IE had an "add on" that added tabs that was popular for a while, surely people might've noticed?
Assuming one has a middle mouse button. As it is, I dislike using the scroll-wheel to click anything. :P
No, it's more like 65.5% http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0
If the browser wars exist only in dwindling niche markets, why does MS continue to improve Internet Explorer?
And if Firefox is losing the war, and "few understand" it, why are they continuing to creep upwards in market share? Why are there a number of Firefox derivatives? Why are the other browsers continuing to play catchup? (tabbed browsing, addons, etc)
Same reason why people go "FRIST PSOT!" on new Slashdot articles.
Softpedia were trying to "break the street date" as it were.
I don't think MS abandoned IE, but they were resting on their laurels. IE was still dominant since it was on 90% of all the desktops and laptops out there.
I don't see how it's silly to think it's "amazing" that a company with very little behind it is able to beat it's competitors, and continually catch up on the #1... when it's competitors have more clout and money.
And you keep saying "funded by Google" like it's a bad thing, and conveniently forget that there are other corporations that both provided the seed money for the project and continue to donate. Google was not part of those who provided the initial money to get things rolling.
And as someone has pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Google created Chrome... so are they now "funding" their competition?
While having 100+ tabs open is a bit nutsy in my opinion, if you are working on several things at the same time, it's more efficient to leave the tabs open. It's the same habit with programs on the computer. Sure, I could just leave open one program at a time, but during the course of the day (I do desktop publishing at a printing company) I use Outlook (for email), Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Acrobat, Distiller, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, several different Windows Explorer windows (different parts of the network), Firefox and Notepad. It's a pain in the ass to keep opening and closing programs and windows, when I can leave them open and ALT-TAB back and forth. As it is, I usually leave Acrobat, two explorer windows, Outlook and Distiller open.
Some folks probably find it more efficient to leave tabs open if they're going to be reading/referencing the material in them.
How is it not? How big is the Mozilla Foundation compared to Microsoft? 75 million dollars compared to what, billions, in revenue?
And Firefox did not have the advantage of being built in natively on 90% of the worlds desktops and laptops.
Heck, Firefox is bigger than the browser that comes on the other ~9% of the worlds desktops and laptops, Safari.
I'd call that a success story, wouldn't you?
Nonprofitness is a tax legal construct. No one has said nonprofitness means they don't make any money, or imply such a thing. It implies more that they are not giant corporations with billions to toss around, of a small group of employees trying to compete with workforces numbering in the tens of thousands.
I've always used ctrl-t to open new, blank tabs, and ctrl-leftclick to open links in new tabs. And since tabbed browsing has been hyped up for ages, I don't see how people could not know. :P
Sure. But there's also the fact that you can browse while "offline", as well, there are settings for when you only want to see "changes" to web pages. There may be addons that are doing things in the background, as well, Firefox might be checking for updates. Tons of things happen that may be cause for the HD to be spun.
Not saying there isn't a bug, and I dislike having my HD spun for no reason as well...
Yes. I'm using FF3.5 now.
No, but they do receive donations, plus money from a deal to put Google as the default search. Google is not the only one donating.
I'm sure they'll catch up. :P
Spins every time you follow a link? Uh, you do know that websites download temporary files, right? Cookies? Pre-caching images, etc?
"The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations as a source of funding. Along with AOL's initial $2 million donation, Mitch Kapor gave $300,000 to the organization at its launch. The group has tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
It is still open source. Not sure where hackers come into this. It accepts donations, which is not the same as funding.
And nonprofit does not mean they don't "make money off firefox".
For me, 0% of the time the right hand is cut off. I doubt it's FF.
Uhm, yes, they pulled in 75 million. So?
"A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization
Nonprofit does not mean "doesn't make any money".
I don't see how Google being a larger benefactor means they're running the show.
Nope, I don't get this behavior either.
Have you checked that off in your default printer settings?
It's there now.
Do not download FF from anywhere except the main FF site. :P
And FF3.5 is up now for download. Pretty snappy, speed-wise. :)
Yeah, I thought the same, a convenient way to browse. And being able to close FF and open it later on with all my tabs intact, that's even better.
While I would argue that trying to base cause and effect off of one incident is a bit off, I would also argue using a drilling technique blamed for causing an earthquake in one of the most earthquake prone areas on the West Coast is nuts. :P
Ah yes, the Gimli Glider. Nothing like sideslipping a jumbo-jet onto a disused airfield with dead engines. :P
:P
Who here is tired of hearing about metric-imperial conversion mistakes?
It is possible that the plane was hit by a meteor. There are many, many pieces of debris falling into Earth's atmosphere every day.
But it begs the question: If meteors are capable of catastrophic damage to an aircraft, why do we not see frequent occurrences of meteor damage that is not catastrophic? Planes are regularly damaged by birds and thunderstorms, and both phenomena have and do take down aircraft (the Hudson river crash being a recent example of a bird strike). We should be seeing minor damage done by meteors before we're seeing aircraft lost to meteors.
Thunderstorms, computer glitches and bird strikes are much more likely to be the culprits here, not to mention human error.
There's even the suggestion of a bomb having brought down the aircraft. Again, this is more likely than a meteor.
But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever find out for sure, if they can't get the black boxes back.
Meteors... Heh, there's way more important things to worry about when flying.
Ok, now you're stretching things quite thin. Since neither can satisfy you, don't buy either. :) Get a pack of cards and a chessboard instead.