Companies like VeriSign and Thawte just make "trust" easier since their CA Certs come pre-installed in most browsers, allowing you to avoid the nag dialog claiming "Untrusted Cert!!".
That's exactly the problem - the fact that a few "trusted" CAs are pre-recognized by browsers makes it impossible (for all practical purposes) to provide your own certificate because users will have to import your certificate in order to avoid being notified that your site is not trustworthy. On a site with a large pre-existing and tech-savvy audience like Slashdot, this may be okay - but just try getting users to willingly do this for a different site.
This is why it's too late to do anything about the problem. The average user is so used to the fact that any site with an "https://" url is "trustworthy" unless they're otherwise notified, that if encryption and trust were suddenly separated, identity theives would have a field day.
The problem with this is that SSL has been arbitrarily tied to "certification," which is the biggest racket on the internet. A grand gets you a certificate and allows users to visit your encrypted site without getting an OMG IDENTITY THEIVES message. If you don't want to shell out for this, forget about running an ecrypted site.
Yes, these two things (encryption and trust) should be separate. But they're not.
Ever wonder how to see the answers on Experts Exchange? View the source of the page. The answers are all included in the HTML that gets served (presumably to increase pagerank) but they're hidden from view unless you sign up. View the source, scroll down, and there are your answers.
I would just like to post one final comment here. You're all right. I was wrong. Opera is the bee's knees. Firefox is shit. I'm a horrible web developer who can't write standards-compliant code to save my life, because obviously if I could then it would look perfect in Opera (since Opera is perfect) and I would have no need to be wary. No more need for argument. The dissenting opinion has left the building. To further demonstrate I will henceforth speak entirely in sheep noises.
I'm not sure HOW opera has survived this long. I tried it long ago (version 3, I believe) and it was VASTLY inferior to the other browsers of the time, even IE, in terms of compliance.
Furthermore, even if it has been at the forefront of standards-compliance, it has such a small marketshare that many clients disregard it entirely.
Just to make my point, I installed opera and viewed some pages in it and in firefox side by side. All of the pages validated in both markup and CSS. Sure enough, opera was slightly different - not enough to ruin usability, but enough to make the page fail to render as intended in Opera. Now, Opera may be more correct; it's not for me to say. What I can say is that using Opera would give me an inferior browsing experience, because I want pages to render the way they were intended.
This free giveaway is a desperate attempt on Opera's behalf to grab marketshare because theirs is dwindling. Once they have it, expect their tune to change.
Also, this doesn't apply to you as much as others, but I would like to say the following: I may have come off as a Firefox zealot/fanboy/your choice of derogatory term, but that's no reason to question my intelligence or mod me down. The purpose of moderation is to weed out trolls, spams, and lame jokes (of which I've admittedly posted my fair share), not to quelsh dissenting opinions or intelligent discussion. I would love to have an intelligent debate but instead people call me a moron or a retard or an idiot rather than simply making their case and letting it speak for itself. You can't blame me for getting a little defensive when all I'm getting are personal attacks.
I think you're a being a little unfair - I've been hostile in return to those who gave hostile, uninformed responses to me.
You raise a good point about open source software - it's never really complete. But I feel that the browser market is different - since standards keep evolving fairly rapidly, there is NEVER a chance for the software to be "complete". It will always be changing. The project may lose developers and gain developers, but I think as long as people like the browser there will always be people dedicated to working on it.
When it comes down to it, 'Joe Sixpack' is not going to pay for a browser. If people don't pay for it, Opera has no business model. Furthermore, if people get the idea in their heads that if they want a new browser besides IE then they have to buy it, they will give up entirely.
I admittedly haven't done a comprehensive comparison of standards compliance between Opera and Firefox. But I stand by my opinion that Firefox is better for the internet than Opera, and Opera may even be a detriment. I am truly apologetic that some people don't share my opinion, and even think I'm an idiot or a moron for having that opinion. But I never did anything to those people other than state what I think. Apparently I'm not allowed even to do that.
I know how long Opera has been around. I don't care.
Opera is a commercial product. Yes, I would prefer an open alternative. Viewing web pages correctly should be a free (as in beer) right. Just because Opera has some profit-making scheme up their sleeves that's causing them to give away their product doesn't mean they won't be charging for it tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or whenever their market share goes up and they feel like they can make some real money.
Read my reply to the other guy who called me a firefox zealot.
Also, read my replies regarding an OPEN SOURCE monopoly vs. a closed-source/commercial one. A monopoly is usually bad because it has the potential to crush progress or drive prices up. Neither of these will happen with open source.
And if you think it's fair to call me an idiot for stating my opinion, than I'm free to call you a dimwitted knee-jerker who regurgitates other people's opinions and entirely missed the point of what I was saying.
I really wish the slashdot crowd could have real discussion and debate. The majority of replies I've seen follow the same formula as yours: State your opinion, declare it as fact, and sling derrogatory names at me. Eliminate the second two and add on some real support for your claim.
Someone does profit from keeping open source up to date: the users. In every case, the developers of open source software ARE the users; therefore the developers profit (in a non-monetary sense) from making the software better.
My argument for a browser monopoly relies on open source. If there is a browser monopoly and the winner is closed source and/or for-profit, then there is no guarantee that the browser will continue to be of high quality or keep up with changing standards.
I'm not trying to force anyone to switch. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of other browsers, as long as they all render standards-compliant code CORRECTLY (meaning there is no room for them not to agree on what the correct interpretation is).
This will never be the case. Everyone is commenting that Opera renders correctly, and you even go so far as to say that standards compliant code will render the same in Firefox, Opera, and Safari. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
If Opera is truly better than Firefox, fine - open source it and I will shut up. Firefox itself is not what's important to me here (I'm not a "Firefox zealot" as you say). What's important to me is that the public see pages (not just my pages) the way they were intended to be seen, as long as the developer has made the code standards-compliant. As long as there are multiple browsers which claim to be standards-compliant but render with their own little quirks, how is this to happen?
You forget that Firefox is open source. That's why it's the perfect candidate to hold a monopoly - it can continue to progress because nobody profits from leaving it in disrepair. With a commercial browser, the company has to pay people to fix it, so they would prefer not to.
Opera may be all about Opera web standards. But Firefox is all about Firefox web standards and IE is all about IE web standards.
Which is closest to W3C's standards? More importantly, which is best?
Speaking from personal experience, I've written pages which were valid, standards compliant according to the W3C docs, and displayed correctly in Firefox ("correctly" is an important word - it implies that the way the page displayed in Firefox is the way it should display according to the W3C). The pages were "off" a bit in Safari, Opera, and IE - all in different ways.
If Firefox were the only browser, it would still continue to improve by virtue of the fact that it's open source, and there are talented programmers who care about its quality.
Also, you're wrong about standards compliant code. When you start doing tricky things, even if they're standards compliant, different browsers start having their own quirks. No two browsers will ever render every possible standards-compliant page the same way. That's why I wish everyone would use Firefox.
I doubt that very much. Put a little thought into it.
Each browser is a schism in the de facto standards. Until all browsers support the same standards equally, the more there are of them, the worse off we are.
In other words, it is logically apparent that the public is better off when one browser can render all pages the way they were intended to be displayed. That will never happen, of course, but the closer we can get, the better. More browsers makes this goal harder to reach.
Instead, why don't all the browser makers collaborate on a great browser? Because that's pinko commie talk, that's why.
I have used Firefox on MacOS X. I prefer it to Safari.
And way to be a jerk. I never said I couldn't make my code work cross-browser. It makes more work for me, though, and many developers won't do it. Maybe try making a better argument than, "Firefox sucks. You're a hack."
In the beginning, browser competition was good. Like it or not, Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" policy pushed the need for standards, even as it proceeded to ignore them.
Now, we have Firefox. It's good. It does a pretty good job of supporting standards. It's available for all platforms, free of charge. It's also open source. As a web developer, I think there's no reason for anyone to use anything but firefox, barring any special need for ActiveX or some such proprietary thing.
Opera, while certainly better than IE, hurts the world wide web by dividing the population even further. With more browsers out there, I can't count on my (standards compliant) code working everywhere, and I have to add hacks for each browser to make it work. Things get even uglier when I try to write a "fat" web app - different browsers support radically different scripting standards.
The chances that all web developers can account for all browsers is slim, and this mean s that any given website is less likely to work in your browser of choice. We need to work to pick a browser and dominate the market with that browser. This is one case where a monopoly would be somewhat beneficial. Capitalism SHOULD take care of this: if a browser has shoddy standards support, people wouldn't use it. Unfortunately, John Q. Public knows next to nothing about standards, and so many sites are still coded to IE that they are broken in other browsers.
During the 70's OPEC managed to bring the entire U.S. economy to a halt by slowing oil export to a trickle. I don't think it's fair to say that the U.S. has control over the global oil supply when clearly we are at the mercy of middle eastern oil suppliers. Check the gas prices next time you're at the pump; do you notice how it shot up 20 cents in the past week? This isn't just price fixing on the part of U.S. distributors (although that may very well be part of it) - OPEC is screwing with us again.
Militarily, you're right; the U.S. has the most military power. But where would that military power be without the oil to drive it? If OPEC decided to cut off our oil supply entirely, our economy AND military would grind to a halt. It's like the kryptonite to our superman. Sure, we can kick ass around the globe, but OPEC holds that growing green rock that brings us to our knees.
Hopefully the ever-improving science of photovoltaics and hydrogen energy will save us someday - then George Bush III can ruthlessly rule the globe. Oh, wait - that's not a good thing.
Marge becomes a robot? Moe gets a cell phone? Or has bart ever owned a bear? Or a crazy wedding? Where something happens and dum do de dum dum? They'll never stop the simpsons!
It always puzzles me how they were able to fit such a detailed, expansive world into one 720K floppy. They don't make 'em like they used to, I guess - nowadays you can buy a game that takes up 1.4 gigs on 2 CDs and still only lasts 12 hours (like Deus Ex 2, aka dissapointment of the century)
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the problem - the fact that a few "trusted" CAs are pre-recognized by browsers makes it impossible (for all practical purposes) to provide your own certificate because users will have to import your certificate in order to avoid being notified that your site is not trustworthy. On a site with a large pre-existing and tech-savvy audience like Slashdot, this may be okay - but just try getting users to willingly do this for a different site.
This is why it's too late to do anything about the problem. The average user is so used to the fact that any site with an "https://" url is "trustworthy" unless they're otherwise notified, that if encryption and trust were suddenly separated, identity theives would have a field day.
The problem with this is that SSL has been arbitrarily tied to "certification," which is the biggest racket on the internet. A grand gets you a certificate and allows users to visit your encrypted site without getting an OMG IDENTITY THEIVES message. If you don't want to shell out for this, forget about running an ecrypted site. Yes, these two things (encryption and trust) should be separate. But they're not.
Ever wonder how to see the answers on Experts Exchange? View the source of the page. The answers are all included in the HTML that gets served (presumably to increase pagerank) but they're hidden from view unless you sign up. View the source, scroll down, and there are your answers.
I forgot to mention: I'm also a retarded, idiotic moron. I'm clearly no older than twelve and have the mental capacity of a chimp.
Err, I mean, Baaaa!
I would just like to post one final comment here. You're all right. I was wrong. Opera is the bee's knees. Firefox is shit. I'm a horrible web developer who can't write standards-compliant code to save my life, because obviously if I could then it would look perfect in Opera (since Opera is perfect) and I would have no need to be wary. No more need for argument. The dissenting opinion has left the building. To further demonstrate I will henceforth speak entirely in sheep noises.
Baaaa!
I'm not sure HOW opera has survived this long. I tried it long ago (version 3, I believe) and it was VASTLY inferior to the other browsers of the time, even IE, in terms of compliance.
Furthermore, even if it has been at the forefront of standards-compliance, it has such a small marketshare that many clients disregard it entirely.
Just to make my point, I installed opera and viewed some pages in it and in firefox side by side. All of the pages validated in both markup and CSS. Sure enough, opera was slightly different - not enough to ruin usability, but enough to make the page fail to render as intended in Opera. Now, Opera may be more correct; it's not for me to say. What I can say is that using Opera would give me an inferior browsing experience, because I want pages to render the way they were intended.
This free giveaway is a desperate attempt on Opera's behalf to grab marketshare because theirs is dwindling. Once they have it, expect their tune to change.
Also, this doesn't apply to you as much as others, but I would like to say the following: I may have come off as a Firefox zealot/fanboy/your choice of derogatory term, but that's no reason to question my intelligence or mod me down. The purpose of moderation is to weed out trolls, spams, and lame jokes (of which I've admittedly posted my fair share), not to quelsh dissenting opinions or intelligent discussion. I would love to have an intelligent debate but instead people call me a moron or a retard or an idiot rather than simply making their case and letting it speak for itself. You can't blame me for getting a little defensive when all I'm getting are personal attacks.
I think you're a being a little unfair - I've been hostile in return to those who gave hostile, uninformed responses to me. You raise a good point about open source software - it's never really complete. But I feel that the browser market is different - since standards keep evolving fairly rapidly, there is NEVER a chance for the software to be "complete". It will always be changing. The project may lose developers and gain developers, but I think as long as people like the browser there will always be people dedicated to working on it. When it comes down to it, 'Joe Sixpack' is not going to pay for a browser. If people don't pay for it, Opera has no business model. Furthermore, if people get the idea in their heads that if they want a new browser besides IE then they have to buy it, they will give up entirely. I admittedly haven't done a comprehensive comparison of standards compliance between Opera and Firefox. But I stand by my opinion that Firefox is better for the internet than Opera, and Opera may even be a detriment. I am truly apologetic that some people don't share my opinion, and even think I'm an idiot or a moron for having that opinion. But I never did anything to those people other than state what I think. Apparently I'm not allowed even to do that.
I know how long Opera has been around. I don't care.
Opera is a commercial product. Yes, I would prefer an open alternative. Viewing web pages correctly should be a free (as in beer) right. Just because Opera has some profit-making scheme up their sleeves that's causing them to give away their product doesn't mean they won't be charging for it tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or whenever their market share goes up and they feel like they can make some real money.
Read my reply to the other guy who called me a firefox zealot. Also, read my replies regarding an OPEN SOURCE monopoly vs. a closed-source/commercial one. A monopoly is usually bad because it has the potential to crush progress or drive prices up. Neither of these will happen with open source. And if you think it's fair to call me an idiot for stating my opinion, than I'm free to call you a dimwitted knee-jerker who regurgitates other people's opinions and entirely missed the point of what I was saying. I really wish the slashdot crowd could have real discussion and debate. The majority of replies I've seen follow the same formula as yours: State your opinion, declare it as fact, and sling derrogatory names at me. Eliminate the second two and add on some real support for your claim.
Someone does profit from keeping open source up to date: the users. In every case, the developers of open source software ARE the users; therefore the developers profit (in a non-monetary sense) from making the software better.
But the competition is not for standards. The majority of users have no idea what the W3C even is.
My argument for a browser monopoly relies on open source. If there is a browser monopoly and the winner is closed source and/or for-profit, then there is no guarantee that the browser will continue to be of high quality or keep up with changing standards.
I'm not trying to force anyone to switch. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of other browsers, as long as they all render standards-compliant code CORRECTLY (meaning there is no room for them not to agree on what the correct interpretation is).
This will never be the case. Everyone is commenting that Opera renders correctly, and you even go so far as to say that standards compliant code will render the same in Firefox, Opera, and Safari. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
If Opera is truly better than Firefox, fine - open source it and I will shut up. Firefox itself is not what's important to me here (I'm not a "Firefox zealot" as you say). What's important to me is that the public see pages (not just my pages) the way they were intended to be seen, as long as the developer has made the code standards-compliant. As long as there are multiple browsers which claim to be standards-compliant but render with their own little quirks, how is this to happen?
You forget that Firefox is open source. That's why it's the perfect candidate to hold a monopoly - it can continue to progress because nobody profits from leaving it in disrepair. With a commercial browser, the company has to pay people to fix it, so they would prefer not to.
Opera may be all about Opera web standards. But Firefox is all about Firefox web standards and IE is all about IE web standards. Which is closest to W3C's standards? More importantly, which is best? Speaking from personal experience, I've written pages which were valid, standards compliant according to the W3C docs, and displayed correctly in Firefox ("correctly" is an important word - it implies that the way the page displayed in Firefox is the way it should display according to the W3C). The pages were "off" a bit in Safari, Opera, and IE - all in different ways.
Is an open source monopoly really a monopoly?
If Firefox were the only browser, it would still continue to improve by virtue of the fact that it's open source, and there are talented programmers who care about its quality.
Also, you're wrong about standards compliant code. When you start doing tricky things, even if they're standards compliant, different browsers start having their own quirks. No two browsers will ever render every possible standards-compliant page the same way. That's why I wish everyone would use Firefox.
True.
My POINT is that there should be One Browser to Rule Them All.
My OPINION is that it should be Firefox.
Both are open to debate, of course.
I doubt that very much. Put a little thought into it. Each browser is a schism in the de facto standards. Until all browsers support the same standards equally, the more there are of them, the worse off we are. In other words, it is logically apparent that the public is better off when one browser can render all pages the way they were intended to be displayed. That will never happen, of course, but the closer we can get, the better. More browsers makes this goal harder to reach. Instead, why don't all the browser makers collaborate on a great browser? Because that's pinko commie talk, that's why.
I have used Firefox on MacOS X. I prefer it to Safari. And way to be a jerk. I never said I couldn't make my code work cross-browser. It makes more work for me, though, and many developers won't do it. Maybe try making a better argument than, "Firefox sucks. You're a hack."
In the beginning, browser competition was good. Like it or not, Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" policy pushed the need for standards, even as it proceeded to ignore them.
Now, we have Firefox. It's good. It does a pretty good job of supporting standards. It's available for all platforms, free of charge. It's also open source. As a web developer, I think there's no reason for anyone to use anything but firefox, barring any special need for ActiveX or some such proprietary thing.
Opera, while certainly better than IE, hurts the world wide web by dividing the population even further. With more browsers out there, I can't count on my (standards compliant) code working everywhere, and I have to add hacks for each browser to make it work. Things get even uglier when I try to write a "fat" web app - different browsers support radically different scripting standards.
The chances that all web developers can account for all browsers is slim, and this mean s that any given website is less likely to work in your browser of choice. We need to work to pick a browser and dominate the market with that browser. This is one case where a monopoly would be somewhat beneficial. Capitalism SHOULD take care of this: if a browser has shoddy standards support, people wouldn't use it. Unfortunately, John Q. Public knows next to nothing about standards, and so many sites are still coded to IE that they are broken in other browsers.
Anyway, the point is: No more browsers, please.
During the 70's OPEC managed to bring the entire U.S. economy to a halt by slowing oil export to a trickle. I don't think it's fair to say that the U.S. has control over the global oil supply when clearly we are at the mercy of middle eastern oil suppliers. Check the gas prices next time you're at the pump; do you notice how it shot up 20 cents in the past week? This isn't just price fixing on the part of U.S. distributors (although that may very well be part of it) - OPEC is screwing with us again.
Militarily, you're right; the U.S. has the most military power. But where would that military power be without the oil to drive it? If OPEC decided to cut off our oil supply entirely, our economy AND military would grind to a halt. It's like the kryptonite to our superman. Sure, we can kick ass around the globe, but OPEC holds that growing green rock that brings us to our knees.
Hopefully the ever-improving science of photovoltaics and hydrogen energy will save us someday - then George Bush III can ruthlessly rule the globe. Oh, wait - that's not a good thing.
Marge becomes a robot?
Moe gets a cell phone? Or has bart ever owned a bear?
Or a crazy wedding? Where something happens and dum do de dum dum?
They'll never stop the simpsons!
I have an idea! Let's outsource all the "Sensationalist Muckraking Journalist" positions to India.
Sounds like it will be a Magic-al evening.
Bzzzt! Nerd overload!
It always puzzles me how they were able to fit such a detailed, expansive world into one 720K floppy. They don't make 'em like they used to, I guess - nowadays you can buy a game that takes up 1.4 gigs on 2 CDs and still only lasts 12 hours (like Deus Ex 2, aka dissapointment of the century)