I have to say to a certain extent I disagree with the universality of the final statement: "When others make loads of money from it, the feeling is mixed." Were I to author a sucessful piece of open source software or open documentation which resulted in someone making a heap of cash, I'd be pretty happy. One measure of the positive economic impact of something is the amount of revenue it generates. And doing nice things feels good. Unless of course you are referring to selling open software without adding value. I will commit the darstedly crime of equating open source with GPL for a minute and point out that selling software without adding value violates the GPL. So if thats what you are referring to then I'm sure people who release under the GPL would be pretty annoyed by violations of the license. I would however consider license violations to be another matter entirely seperate from someone making money using OSS.
Your response has a number of technical errors I should make you aware of. Logical Positivism (aka Popper and his buddies) is not science, it is a guiding hand to scientific theory, but falsifiability is not a requirement for a scientific theory. In fact you point out yourself it leads to a logical inconsistency if we insist all axiomatic forms in science must adhere strictly to this requirement, because it cannot itself be falsified. Falsifiability is therefore an indication of the quality of a theory. Science therefore requires no faith unless you include the requirement for logical positivism, which pure reductionism does not. You next statement makes it clear you are aware of this because you play a semantic game by suggesting that science is reductionist fundamentalism (now coupled with logical positivism for good measure). If you choose to define science that way then you would be running contrary to the general perception and accepted definition of science. Science is a method, not a religion. As for accuracy and truth. Truth is irrelevant to science. You made truth an issue by essentially defining Science as a essentially dogmatic religion ascribing to it's axiomatic structure truth. If you consider science a method, then truth does not enter into the equation. Accuracy does not contribute to truth. Accuracy is a measure of the quality of fact. Godel's (Incompleteness) theorem is not science, it is mathematics. I can make Godel's Incompleteness Theorem false from a deductive logical perspective if I wish to by adjusting the axiomatic structure of Set Theory if I wish to. Science is not equipt to answer any questions of truth if you view it as a method, it can only address fact, unless you extend science beyound fact into truth and then make it on a par with a religion. Your last statement about science vs. metaphysics made no sense so I wont comment on it. In conclusion logical positivism coupled with reductionist fundamentalism is (thankfully) not science. Science is a method, and it is free from logical positivism, and the fundamentalist aspect of fundamentalist reductionism. Your presumption otherwise is what leads you to the conclusion science is on a par with religion.
I should point out that you are not describing scientific method. Science is a process for arriving at a defined construct, fact. It says nothing about the 'value' or 'truth' of that construct. You are describing reductionist fundamentalism, which is in effect a religion of sorts. If you hold scientific fact as necessarily true then you are some brand of reductionist fundamentalist. Scientific method does not require it's assumptions to be prooved, because it makes no statement about the truth of those statements. So if humanity evolved beyound religious belief systems then reductionist fundamentalism would disappear, but scientific method would not and would almost certainly still be used to arrive at scientific fact. As a scientist I don't believe any of our models for the universe are 'true'. I do however see the inherent utility in thier predictive power and capacity to explain prior phenomina. This inherent utility of science is what threatens religions because even a devout religious individuals will question thier version of truth when it collides with scientific fact.
If someone attempts to rob from myself or someone else in the street, I am allowed to restrain that person and prevent the crime if I have the capability, even if the acts against that person would nominally be illegal (for example restraining them or knocking a knife out of thier hand). How is this significantly different? The owners of these sites are commiting a felony, and those who take out the sites are preventing a crime. If they attack a site which was legitimate or destroy someone elses property then they undergo due process, thats why you must be very careful when intervening to prevent a crime. However there is nothing illegal (or wrong for that matter) with preventing the crime if you are capable of being selective about it is there (such as selectively defacing the offending site)? Maybe this falls into some legal grey area I'm not aware of (incidentally I'm from the UK so my legal system and your legal system may be different).
You make a fair and interesting point. However I disagree with the strength of your assertions, although not the assertions themselves. Good CIOs listen to the troops, but there are bad CIOs out there. So although the point carries weight it is not an absolute. Secondly the troops are not always aware of options, thats one of the reasons why there is a CIO in the first place. In an all Microsoft shop the only way for OSS to take hold might well be the CIO. I'm sorry about your problems with your FC3 box, but I must commend you for the effort. If the point you are trying to make is that the Open Source community needs to make greater efforts documenting and provide support for learning users. I concur. But users eager to learn are not likely to be affected by Microsoft FUD and I was posting a "how to respond to FUD" suggestion. I'm also sorry you had trouble getting your "ask slashdot" suggestion through. It sounded like an excelent idea to me. Your suggestion seems to be related to "how can the OSS community get conversions". Your suggestions make perfect sense and I agree with most of them. However I was addressing the question "how do we combat FUD". I don't think FUD is aimed at techies such as yourself who are keen to learn. I think it is aimed at CIOs and those above them in management. If we are to combat FUD these are the people to convice. If you are to get conversions then people such as yourself are the target. I see no contradiction here. Many thanks for your clarification though my original post was somewhat misleading.
I disagree with the tone but not the sentiment. This is a minor set-back for Linux and OSS software in general. It indicates that Microsofts marketing is now effective and the solution is to stop complaining about Mircosofts skill in marketing and start countering it. There is a need to redouble our evangelisation efforts, to concerntrate on pointing out the flaws in Microsoft paid for studies, to extole the vitues of our software, in particular how these virtues impact the bottom line of the CIO's we are trying to convince. As OSS advocates we should primarily be concerned with writing good code, filling bug reports and generally producing high quality software. But those of us who engage in marketing need to learn to push the right buttons the same way Microsoft pushes the right buttons. The difference being is we don't have to mislead to market. Many of us balked and laughed when the Microsoft FUD guns were trained on Linux TCO. This study indicates we (myself included) were wrong to laugh, and we need to appreciate that Microsoft has suceeded in changing perception with thier marketing. We should stop complaining about how good Microsoft marketing is, stop dismissing Microsoft marketing as 'just marketing', and fight back against it.
Oh no the pricing scheme is very fair you are right. I wasn't using scheme in the malevolent sense. I was simply saying that Opera doesn't offer my enough value as it stands for me to pay the price. I don't like looking at ads (fair enough I feel). Given that firefox is sufficient for my needs, and that I already have an array of other browsers available to me on my computer including Konquerer and Lynx all of which are free, Opera doesn't add sufficient value to these browsers to make the price worthwhile to me. I guess what I was really trying to say was that I didn't want to have to pay / look at ads (trying to sound altruistic, but caught again, doh). It's a fair cop. PFE.
I must admit I find the comparison a bit confusing myself. While Firefox has some options that will appeal to the power user, they tend to be concealed or installed as plug ins. Opera on the other hand is faster (at least in most benchmarkings I've seen on Linux), and has a wealth of additional features. I grant you Firefox has some features Opera doesn't but on the whole I would say Opera is the more feature rich (ignoring plugins for the time being). However I haven't used Opera in a while. I feel a comparison of Firefox and Opera like this is apples to oranges. Sure these are both browsers (fruit) but they are still completely different in many regards, a different people are going to prefer different 'tastes'. I feel the market share is a fair reflection of the objectives of the developers. Firefox aims to be a user friendly general purpose browser, and is primarily gunning after Internet Explorer's market, i.e. the general public. Opera on the other hand is fast, has some extra features and I would suggest is aimed at the nerd with a need for speed. In a way it already has that market. Now I'm not beating up on Firefox here (what do you think I'm writing this post in?), I prefer the UI in Firefox, and I prefer the customisability one gets from plugins. I also like the way RSS is handled. All I'm saying is that Opera and Firefox are not, in my opinion, aimed at the same people. Which browser to use should be down to the individual. However I do find it frustrating when an article lacks a conclusion, and this one certainly did. Not to mention it was a bit light on the details. But then I feel the whole premise of the article is a fallacy, that is that Opera and Firefox are aimed at the same market. I'm not sure there are any comparable cross-platform browsers, although I suspect someone might correct me on that one. Anyhow, I prefer Firefox, but then I don't use many of the advanced stuff and like plugins, generally use OSS where possible and don't like the pricing scheme for Opera. Opera users I'm sure are not like me, and hence don't use the same browser.
I don't believe in Microsoft bashing, but this does concern me from a competition stand point. Given that many of the malicious pieces of code AV software targets uses security loop holes in software, doesn't Microsoft have an unfair advantage in entering the AV software market. It strikes me as an abuse of monopoly position since they can look at the source code and figure out exactly what the problems are that the malicious code will target, then write heuristic algorithms to catch them. Competitors cant do this without a NDA and therefore legal risk. Given Microsoft is already a convicted monopoly I'm not sure I trust them not to abuse their position here. PFE.
You are of course, correct. However I was attempting to readress the balance of the original post. The freedom is only important (from a business point of view) in the context that it is freedom to make money. Be that freedom to avoid costs (such as when your software vendor goes to the wall), or freedom to fix bugs etc. The original post was talking about DRM and FSF style freedom. My point was the reason the OSS movement is winning isn't freedom for freedoms sake, but freedom impacting the bottom line. This I believe is the point you are making, and I appreciate the clarification. PFE.
Sadly as much as I admire your idealism I must disagree. the FSF have been pushing this line for a long time, and arguing effectively. And it got us nowhere. The problem is no one (except perhaps the odd politician with a nationalistic bug up his arse) could care less if software is free (as in freedom free), with the exception of the odd person like you and me. In a way however the fact that no one cares about our priorities is a good thing. It means there must be other reasons people and companies are switching to OSS. Companies want power not because they are power crazy, but because it impacts thier bottom line. Open source software is empowering, and in many cases it cuts costs, so companies are switching. I like my freedom too, I cant stand DRM and use very little proprietary software for personal stuff. However, in my opinion, the fact of the matter is the OSS movement is winning not because of freedom but because the OSS development model is superior to the close proprietary model from an economic stand point, at least as far as the customer is concerned.
You make a good point, but, and I'm sure you know this, transition cost are a one off. Sure once you switch to OpenOffice.org you are in effect locked into it by the training costs you staff would have to under go to switch. But what you aren't locked into is where you get your servicing, your upgrades, bug fixes and perhaps most importantly your archives of documents will always be readable.
Don't like the company who is supporting your software? Find another company. They all have access to the source code. Not to mention the support is often better with open source software because it's what geeks use and like to talk about (for example on forums).
If a company turns around and says to you (in effect) "your bug isn't a priority, it's part of a small section of our system and we will get round to fixing it in six months". With propriatary software you are locked in. It might be costing you thousands a day because of a simple bug. And you can fix it. What if the bug is simple. With open software if your primary vendor gives you the finger, spend a few grand, fix the bug yourself, heck make a PR exercise out of it by telling your customers you are more reliable because when things go wrong you can fix it. Sure it cost you some cash, but less cash and you can extract some benefit by appearing dynamic or powerful.
And thats really the bottom line here. Companies aren't looking to avoid vendor lock in simply because they are power crazy. Vendor lock in hits the bottom line, and it hits it unpredictably in many ways. These people don't want freedom for freedoms sake and could care less about how 'evil' proprietary software is (or otherwise). They want options because not having options costs them money.
This being said the parent has a point. We shouldn't recomend open source software without cavets. Switching software is expensive. Companies budget for software expenses. Some expect they will have to upgrade MS Office and it's in their software budgets for when it happens. The message shouldn't go "switch to OSS it's free". (beer and pretzels free or freedom free). The message should be switch to OSS when you can afford the major transition costs and take back the power to make your business more profitable. Power to change support source, power to fix bugs, power to get the features you need by putting them in yourself, power to read your achives without converting them through five different formats. People in business want power because the can use that power to save time and make money. Thats why they don't like vendor lock in, and the advantage exists even if switching from Office XP to Office Longhorn (or whatever it will be called) is cheaper than switching from Office XP to OpenOffice.
Fair enough if thats your experience. If you like tabbed browsing you can get FF to open stuff automatically in a new tab. Otherwise if speed is a priority and security a secondary concern IE is probably the right browser for your system. Peace, PFE.
Thanks for the article about Firefox, it's nice to know where to be careful when using a browser. However I disagree with your translation. I'm sure the author of this comment would be more than happy to see an article that critically examined the browser, talking about security problems, usability issues, etc. There are plenty of places you can pick at Firefox. However this article did not do that. Instead the decision was taken to misrepresent statistics, either deliberately or through negligence. There have been plenty of references given indicating that known Firefox bugs are on the whole less critical than Internet Explorers. Because of ActiveX and the integration of the browser with the OS security issues in IE are likely to be more severe. However there are bonuses to this integration. IE loads faster first time, it can display the contents of hard disks and network drives at the click of an address bar. Some people find ActiveX scripts essential. The trade off is usability for security. However trying to pretned that there are no disadvantages to security to ActiveX and OS Integration is pointless. Both Microsofts and Mozilla have excelent programmers making good code. Microsoft traded a bit of security in for usability and you got IE. Firefox in a sense does not have that option. The article tried to suggest based on unqualified statistics that IE and Firefox are on a level pegging for security. That was bad journalism and as a result many of the criticisms the article recieved are justified. I therefore feel it is a dash unfair to suggest this article was posted on slashdot because it disagreed with someones opinion. I would suggest it was more highlighting the poor journalism and the potentially negative effect this could have on IE and Firefox users alike.
I wouldn't suggest this article was bad because it criticises Firefox. I myself have seen some good criticisms about Firefox that have been very fair. Some people find it hard to update. Non-standard HTML, CSS, etc is a problem (although I would argue the problem is people writing non-standard code). Loading time is slower (again not the fault of Firefox but still a problem for some users). The reason people take umbridge at this article is not that it criticises Firefox. You could have an entire article which listed the problems I mention above with the title "Why I don't use Firefox" and I don't think there would be many complaints. People are unhappy because it is misrepresentative journalism. The author abuses statistics (either deliberately or through negligence), and presents opinion as fact. You make the point that no amount of proof would convince people Firefox wasn't better than IE. I could easily be made to believe Firefox wasn't better than IE for some users. If a user said: "The moral issues of standards don't bother me, I want to be able to render non-standard code. I want my browser to load fast first time. I don't care about CSS 2.0. I want software I can update using Windows Update. I have my own pop up blocker. I surf carefully and security isn't a serious issue. I cant stand tabbed browsing... etc." The last thing I would say is "Oh well Firefox is for you then.". However Firefox is more secure, it renders standard code correctly, and it has some nice features IE doesn't have which make it broadly appealing. I don't see that as something I have to get over. I think if you are happy using IE you should carry on. However I like to see this forum as an opertunity to talk about the facts, peoples likes and dislikes and examine how we can make things better for users by getting them the software they want. This article was completely the opposite, it was bias, and misleading. Criticism of Open Source projects is vital, it helps make them better by telling developers what users want. That can only help proprietory vendors do the same and everyone wins. Using statistics in this somewhat underhand way is damaging because it causes people who should be using IE to use Firefox, and people who should be using Firefox to use IE. Peace, PFE.
People are upset because the journalism was not of a high quality and it affects the products they use directly. From someone who has 25 years in the business this article was either poorly researched or deliberately misleading. The thrust of the article was a valid one "Firefox is not a panacea". Okay. But anyone who said it was had probably just had a dash to much caffine that morning. So what was it that was bad about the article? It made comparisons using inapropriate statistics. Firefox had some severe problems, true. Internet Explorer has some severe problems, also true. However both of these are expected, the problem is that Internet Explorer has more severe problems than Firefox does. Plenty of sources have been listed here to attest to that fact so I wont repeat them. Is it because Microsoft is the evil empire that writes inherently bad code? No, not even slightly. They have some of the best programmers in the world working on thier code. Is it because the open source model is superior at producing high quality code? Maybe, maybe not, the jury is still out on that one. In this case the patches are faster (a proported advantage of OSS), but some would argue that updating Firefox can be a bit of a pain. I for one believe that the open source model is better, but that in this case the significant factor was somewhat simpler. ActiveX controls and the inherent ties of Internet Explorer to the Operating System make it a greater security risk. This is why in my opinion there are more sever security holes in IE than in Firefox. So why were Firefox users riled? According to Microsofts own reseach (see the Haloween documents) users 'like' Open Source vendors more than they do Microsoft. They might report more bugs,and because it is open source there are probably more people looking at Firefoxes code trying to find bugs. So what happens when you have two good pieces of code being highly scrutiniesed? Bugs are found. Assuming that both sets of programmers are pretty good and that the code for both IE and Firefox was written by capable individuals the fact that an equal number of bugs have been found in Firefox as in IE is in fact a good thing. It indicates that the open source model is working, since something with a 10% user base is identifying errors at the same rate as something with a user base around 90%. I don't want to argue with people why my browser is better. If you like IE and know its advantages and disadvantages I suggest you keep using it and don't switch to another browser that will make you unhappy or frustrated. But perhaps it's worth viewing a debate over browsers as an opertunity for you to learn more and make friends, rather than telling those of us who enjoy the odd contraversial conversation to go outside and do it. Peace, PFE.
Sounds like you have some excelent suggestions there. Firefox crashes are a problem. I had problems when I upgraded from 0.9, at least for a while. However... reporting bugs helps to get them fixed. When firefox crashes if you report it, you provide some programmer with a chance to obtain some prestige by fixing it. The more detailed your bug report, the more likely the problem with be fixed. Of course it's worth checking to see if it is a known bug... As for the features you suggest, some of those sound interesting. I believe there are good reasons why they haven't been implemented yet (licencing problems, Firefox still not on what you might consider a fully stable release, etc) a but some are almost certainly on the cards for the future. Why not see if there is some way you can contribute to getting these changes made? Even if you aren't a programmer there are things you can do to help. I personally find the OS method empowering because the ability and responsibility to get what I want out of software lies with me. You also have the ability to get what you want out of your software, and if you want it, you can take on responsibility for it too. Note: I'm not saying that failling to contribute to any open source project is irresponsible. I'm saying having the option to take responsibility if you want it is a good thing. Peace, PFE.
You are right, it does take Firefox longer to run first time. And if this annoys you that is understandable. However the reason for this is important. Firefox isn't loaded when the operating system starts. Internet Explorer has large portions of itself already in memory when you run it first time, because it is inherently tied to the operating system. Part of the problem with IE is its inherent ties to the OS, an exploitable bug in IE might also be a bug for the OS. It is therefore a tradeoff between security and usability. If you are happy with IE because of a dislike of long loading times thats fair enough and I wish you happy browsing. However if you weren't aware already I hope this helps you get the right balance of usability and security for your system. Peace, PFE.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say to a certain extent I disagree with the universality of the final statement:
"When others make loads of money from it, the feeling is mixed."
Were I to author a sucessful piece of open source software or open documentation which resulted in someone making a heap of cash, I'd be pretty happy. One measure of the positive economic impact of something is the amount of revenue it generates. And doing nice things feels good.
Unless of course you are referring to selling open software without adding value. I will commit the darstedly crime of equating open source with GPL for a minute and point out that selling software without adding value violates the GPL. So if thats what you are referring to then I'm sure people who release under the GPL would be pretty annoyed by violations of the license. I would however consider license violations to be another matter entirely seperate from someone making money using OSS.
Your response has a number of technical errors I should make you aware of.
Logical Positivism (aka Popper and his buddies) is not science, it is a guiding hand to scientific theory, but falsifiability is not a requirement for a scientific theory. In fact you point out yourself it leads to a logical inconsistency if we insist all axiomatic forms in science must adhere strictly to this requirement, because it cannot itself be falsified.
Falsifiability is therefore an indication of the quality of a theory. Science therefore requires no faith unless you include the requirement for logical positivism, which pure reductionism does not.
You next statement makes it clear you are aware of this because you play a semantic game by suggesting that science is reductionist fundamentalism (now coupled with logical positivism for good measure). If you choose to define science that way then you would be running contrary to the general perception and accepted definition of science. Science is a method, not a religion.
As for accuracy and truth. Truth is irrelevant to science. You made truth an issue by essentially defining Science as a essentially dogmatic religion ascribing to it's axiomatic structure truth. If you consider science a method, then truth does not enter into the equation. Accuracy does not contribute to truth. Accuracy is a measure of the quality of fact.
Godel's (Incompleteness) theorem is not science, it is mathematics. I can make Godel's Incompleteness Theorem false from a deductive logical perspective if I wish to by adjusting the axiomatic structure of Set Theory if I wish to.
Science is not equipt to answer any questions of truth if you view it as a method, it can only address fact, unless you extend science beyound fact into truth and then make it on a par with a religion.
Your last statement about science vs. metaphysics made no sense so I wont comment on it.
In conclusion logical positivism coupled with reductionist fundamentalism is (thankfully) not science. Science is a method, and it is free from logical positivism, and the fundamentalist aspect of fundamentalist reductionism. Your presumption otherwise is what leads you to the conclusion science is on a par with religion.
I should point out that you are not describing scientific method. Science is a process for arriving at a defined construct, fact. It says nothing about the 'value' or 'truth' of that construct.
You are describing reductionist fundamentalism, which is in effect a religion of sorts. If you hold scientific fact as necessarily true then you are some brand of reductionist fundamentalist.
Scientific method does not require it's assumptions to be prooved, because it makes no statement about the truth of those statements.
So if humanity evolved beyound religious belief systems then reductionist fundamentalism would disappear, but scientific method would not and would almost certainly still be used to arrive at scientific fact.
As a scientist I don't believe any of our models for the universe are 'true'. I do however see the inherent utility in thier predictive power and capacity to explain prior phenomina. This inherent utility of science is what threatens religions because even a devout religious individuals will question thier version of truth when it collides with scientific fact.
If someone attempts to rob from myself or someone else in the street, I am allowed to restrain that person and prevent the crime if I have the capability, even if the acts against that person would nominally be illegal (for example restraining them or knocking a knife out of thier hand). How is this significantly different? The owners of these sites are commiting a felony, and those who take out the sites are preventing a crime. If they attack a site which was legitimate or destroy someone elses property then they undergo due process, thats why you must be very careful when intervening to prevent a crime. However there is nothing illegal (or wrong for that matter) with preventing the crime if you are capable of being selective about it is there (such as selectively defacing the offending site)?
Maybe this falls into some legal grey area I'm not aware of (incidentally I'm from the UK so my legal system and your legal system may be different).
You make a fair and interesting point. However I disagree with the strength of your assertions, although not the assertions themselves.
Good CIOs listen to the troops, but there are bad CIOs out there. So although the point carries weight it is not an absolute.
Secondly the troops are not always aware of options, thats one of the reasons why there is a CIO in the first place. In an all Microsoft shop the only way for OSS to take hold might well be the CIO.
I'm sorry about your problems with your FC3 box, but I must commend you for the effort. If the point you are trying to make is that the Open Source community needs to make greater efforts documenting and provide support for learning users. I concur. But users eager to learn are not likely to be affected by Microsoft FUD and I was posting a "how to respond to FUD" suggestion.
I'm also sorry you had trouble getting your "ask slashdot" suggestion through. It sounded like an excelent idea to me.
Your suggestion seems to be related to "how can the OSS community get conversions". Your suggestions make perfect sense and I agree with most of them. However I was addressing the question "how do we combat FUD". I don't think FUD is aimed at techies such as yourself who are keen to learn. I think it is aimed at CIOs and those above them in management. If we are to combat FUD these are the people to convice. If you are to get conversions then people such as yourself are the target. I see no contradiction here.
Many thanks for your clarification though my original post was somewhat misleading.
I disagree with the tone but not the sentiment. This is a minor set-back for Linux and OSS software in general. It indicates that Microsofts marketing is now effective and the solution is to stop complaining about Mircosofts skill in marketing and start countering it.
There is a need to redouble our evangelisation efforts, to concerntrate on pointing out the flaws in Microsoft paid for studies, to extole the vitues of our software, in particular how these virtues impact the bottom line of the CIO's we are trying to convince.
As OSS advocates we should primarily be concerned with writing good code, filling bug reports and generally producing high quality software. But those of us who engage in marketing need to learn to push the right buttons the same way Microsoft pushes the right buttons. The difference being is we don't have to mislead to market.
Many of us balked and laughed when the Microsoft FUD guns were trained on Linux TCO. This study indicates we (myself included) were wrong to laugh, and we need to appreciate that Microsoft has suceeded in changing perception with thier marketing. We should stop complaining about how good Microsoft marketing is, stop dismissing Microsoft marketing as 'just marketing', and fight back against it.
Oh no the pricing scheme is very fair you are right. I wasn't using scheme in the malevolent sense. I was simply saying that Opera doesn't offer my enough value as it stands for me to pay the price.
I don't like looking at ads (fair enough I feel). Given that firefox is sufficient for my needs, and that I already have an array of other browsers available to me on my computer including Konquerer and Lynx all of which are free, Opera doesn't add sufficient value to these browsers to make the price worthwhile to me.
I guess what I was really trying to say was that I didn't want to have to pay / look at ads (trying to sound altruistic, but caught again, doh).
It's a fair cop.
PFE.
I must admit I find the comparison a bit confusing myself. While Firefox has some options that will appeal to the power user, they tend to be concealed or installed as plug ins. Opera on the other hand is faster (at least in most benchmarkings I've seen on Linux), and has a wealth of additional features. I grant you Firefox has some features Opera doesn't but on the whole I would say Opera is the more feature rich (ignoring plugins for the time being). However I haven't used Opera in a while.
I feel a comparison of Firefox and Opera like this is apples to oranges. Sure these are both browsers (fruit) but they are still completely different in many regards, a different people are going to prefer different 'tastes'.
I feel the market share is a fair reflection of the objectives of the developers. Firefox aims to be a user friendly general purpose browser, and is primarily gunning after Internet Explorer's market, i.e. the general public. Opera on the other hand is fast, has some extra features and I would suggest is aimed at the nerd with a need for speed. In a way it already has that market.
Now I'm not beating up on Firefox here (what do you think I'm writing this post in?), I prefer the UI in Firefox, and I prefer the customisability one gets from plugins. I also like the way RSS is handled. All I'm saying is that Opera and Firefox are not, in my opinion, aimed at the same people. Which browser to use should be down to the individual.
However I do find it frustrating when an article lacks a conclusion, and this one certainly did. Not to mention it was a bit light on the details. But then I feel the whole premise of the article is a fallacy, that is that Opera and Firefox are aimed at the same market. I'm not sure there are any comparable cross-platform browsers, although I suspect someone might correct me on that one.
Anyhow, I prefer Firefox, but then I don't use many of the advanced stuff and like plugins, generally use OSS where possible and don't like the pricing scheme for Opera. Opera users I'm sure are not like me, and hence don't use the same browser.
I don't believe in Microsoft bashing, but this does concern me from a competition stand point. Given that many of the malicious pieces of code AV software targets uses security loop holes in software, doesn't Microsoft have an unfair advantage in entering the AV software market.
It strikes me as an abuse of monopoly position since they can look at the source code and figure out exactly what the problems are that the malicious code will target, then write heuristic algorithms to catch them. Competitors cant do this without a NDA and therefore legal risk. Given Microsoft is already a convicted monopoly I'm not sure I trust them not to abuse their position here.
PFE.
You are of course, correct.
However I was attempting to readress the balance of the original post. The freedom is only important (from a business point of view) in the context that it is freedom to make money. Be that freedom to avoid costs (such as when your software vendor goes to the wall), or freedom to fix bugs etc. The original post was talking about DRM and FSF style freedom. My point was the reason the OSS movement is winning isn't freedom for freedoms sake, but freedom impacting the bottom line.
This I believe is the point you are making, and I appreciate the clarification.
PFE.
Sadly as much as I admire your idealism I must disagree. the FSF have been pushing this line for a long time, and arguing effectively. And it got us nowhere. The problem is no one (except perhaps the odd politician with a nationalistic bug up his arse) could care less if software is free (as in freedom free), with the exception of the odd person like you and me.
In a way however the fact that no one cares about our priorities is a good thing. It means there must be other reasons people and companies are switching to OSS. Companies want power not because they are power crazy, but because it impacts thier bottom line. Open source software is empowering, and in many cases it cuts costs, so companies are switching.
I like my freedom too, I cant stand DRM and use very little proprietary software for personal stuff. However, in my opinion, the fact of the matter is the OSS movement is winning not because of freedom but because the OSS development model is superior to the close proprietary model from an economic stand point, at least as far as the customer is concerned.
You make a good point, but, and I'm sure you know this, transition cost are a one off. Sure once you switch to OpenOffice.org you are in effect locked into it by the training costs you staff would have to under go to switch. But what you aren't locked into is where you get your servicing, your upgrades, bug fixes and perhaps most importantly your archives of documents will always be readable. Don't like the company who is supporting your software? Find another company. They all have access to the source code. Not to mention the support is often better with open source software because it's what geeks use and like to talk about (for example on forums). If a company turns around and says to you (in effect) "your bug isn't a priority, it's part of a small section of our system and we will get round to fixing it in six months". With propriatary software you are locked in. It might be costing you thousands a day because of a simple bug. And you can fix it. What if the bug is simple. With open software if your primary vendor gives you the finger, spend a few grand, fix the bug yourself, heck make a PR exercise out of it by telling your customers you are more reliable because when things go wrong you can fix it. Sure it cost you some cash, but less cash and you can extract some benefit by appearing dynamic or powerful. And thats really the bottom line here. Companies aren't looking to avoid vendor lock in simply because they are power crazy. Vendor lock in hits the bottom line, and it hits it unpredictably in many ways. These people don't want freedom for freedoms sake and could care less about how 'evil' proprietary software is (or otherwise). They want options because not having options costs them money. This being said the parent has a point. We shouldn't recomend open source software without cavets. Switching software is expensive. Companies budget for software expenses. Some expect they will have to upgrade MS Office and it's in their software budgets for when it happens. The message shouldn't go "switch to OSS it's free". (beer and pretzels free or freedom free). The message should be switch to OSS when you can afford the major transition costs and take back the power to make your business more profitable. Power to change support source, power to fix bugs, power to get the features you need by putting them in yourself, power to read your achives without converting them through five different formats. People in business want power because the can use that power to save time and make money. Thats why they don't like vendor lock in, and the advantage exists even if switching from Office XP to Office Longhorn (or whatever it will be called) is cheaper than switching from Office XP to OpenOffice.
Fair enough if thats your experience.
If you like tabbed browsing you can get FF to open stuff automatically in a new tab.
Otherwise if speed is a priority and security a secondary concern IE is probably the right browser for your system.
Peace,
PFE.
Thanks for the article about Firefox, it's nice to know where to be careful when using a browser.
However I disagree with your translation. I'm sure the author of this comment would be more than happy to see an article that critically examined the browser, talking about security problems, usability issues, etc. There are plenty of places you can pick at Firefox.
However this article did not do that. Instead the decision was taken to misrepresent statistics, either deliberately or through negligence. There have been plenty of references given indicating that known Firefox bugs are on the whole less critical than Internet Explorers. Because of ActiveX and the integration of the browser with the OS security issues in IE are likely to be more severe. However there are bonuses to this integration. IE loads faster first time, it can display the contents of hard disks and network drives at the click of an address bar. Some people find ActiveX scripts essential. The trade off is usability for security.
However trying to pretned that there are no disadvantages to security to ActiveX and OS Integration is pointless. Both Microsofts and Mozilla have excelent programmers making good code. Microsoft traded a bit of security in for usability and you got IE. Firefox in a sense does not have that option.
The article tried to suggest based on unqualified statistics that IE and Firefox are on a level pegging for security. That was bad journalism and as a result many of the criticisms the article recieved are justified. I therefore feel it is a dash unfair to suggest this article was posted on slashdot because it disagreed with someones opinion. I would suggest it was more highlighting the poor journalism and the potentially negative effect this could have on IE and Firefox users alike.
I wouldn't suggest this article was bad because it criticises Firefox. I myself have seen some good criticisms about Firefox that have been very fair. Some people find it hard to update. Non-standard HTML, CSS, etc is a problem (although I would argue the problem is people writing non-standard code). Loading time is slower (again not the fault of Firefox but still a problem for some users).
The reason people take umbridge at this article is not that it criticises Firefox. You could have an entire article which listed the problems I mention above with the title "Why I don't use Firefox" and I don't think there would be many complaints. People are unhappy because it is misrepresentative journalism. The author abuses statistics (either deliberately or through negligence), and presents opinion as fact.
You make the point that no amount of proof would convince people Firefox wasn't better than IE. I could easily be made to believe Firefox wasn't better than IE for some users. If a user said:
"The moral issues of standards don't bother me, I want to be able to render non-standard code. I want my browser to load fast first time. I don't care about CSS 2.0. I want software I can update using Windows Update. I have my own pop up blocker. I surf carefully and security isn't a serious issue. I cant stand tabbed browsing... etc."
The last thing I would say is "Oh well Firefox is for you then.".
However Firefox is more secure, it renders standard code correctly, and it has some nice features IE doesn't have which make it broadly appealing.
I don't see that as something I have to get over. I think if you are happy using IE you should carry on. However I like to see this forum as an opertunity to talk about the facts, peoples likes and dislikes and examine how we can make things better for users by getting them the software they want.
This article was completely the opposite, it was bias, and misleading.
Criticism of Open Source projects is vital, it helps make them better by telling developers what users want. That can only help proprietory vendors do the same and everyone wins. Using statistics in this somewhat underhand way is damaging because it causes people who should be using IE to use Firefox, and people who should be using Firefox to use IE.
Peace,
PFE.
People are upset because the journalism was not of a high quality and it affects the products they use directly. From someone who has 25 years in the business this article was either poorly researched or deliberately misleading.
The thrust of the article was a valid one "Firefox is not a panacea". Okay. But anyone who said it was had probably just had a dash to much caffine that morning.
So what was it that was bad about the article? It made comparisons using inapropriate statistics. Firefox had some severe problems, true. Internet Explorer has some severe problems, also true. However both of these are expected, the problem is that Internet Explorer has more severe problems than Firefox does. Plenty of sources have been listed here to attest to that fact so I wont repeat them.
Is it because Microsoft is the evil empire that writes inherently bad code? No, not even slightly. They have some of the best programmers in the world working on thier code. Is it because the open source model is superior at producing high quality code? Maybe, maybe not, the jury is still out on that one. In this case the patches are faster (a proported advantage of OSS), but some would argue that updating Firefox can be a bit of a pain. I for one believe that the open source model is better, but that in this case the significant factor was somewhat simpler.
ActiveX controls and the inherent ties of Internet Explorer to the Operating System make it a greater security risk. This is why in my opinion there are more sever security holes in IE than in Firefox.
So why were Firefox users riled? According to Microsofts own reseach (see the Haloween documents) users 'like' Open Source vendors more than they do Microsoft. They might report more bugs,and because it is open source there are probably more people looking at Firefoxes code trying to find bugs. So what happens when you have two good pieces of code being highly scrutiniesed? Bugs are found. Assuming that both sets of programmers are pretty good and that the code for both IE and Firefox was written by capable individuals the fact that an equal number of bugs have been found in Firefox as in IE is in fact a good thing. It indicates that the open source model is working, since something with a 10% user base is identifying errors at the same rate as something with a user base around 90%.
I don't want to argue with people why my browser is better. If you like IE and know its advantages and disadvantages I suggest you keep using it and don't switch to another browser that will make you unhappy or frustrated. But perhaps it's worth viewing a debate over browsers as an opertunity for you to learn more and make friends, rather than telling those of us who enjoy the odd contraversial conversation to go outside and do it.
Peace,
PFE.
Sounds like you have some excelent suggestions there.
Firefox crashes are a problem. I had problems when I upgraded from 0.9, at least for a while.
However... reporting bugs helps to get them fixed. When firefox crashes if you report it, you provide some programmer with a chance to obtain some prestige by fixing it. The more detailed your bug report, the more likely the problem with be fixed. Of course it's worth checking to see if it is a known bug...
As for the features you suggest, some of those sound interesting. I believe there are good reasons why they haven't been implemented yet (licencing problems, Firefox still not on what you might consider a fully stable release, etc) a but some are almost certainly on the cards for the future. Why not see if there is some way you can contribute to getting these changes made? Even if you aren't a programmer there are things you can do to help.
I personally find the OS method empowering because the ability and responsibility to get what I want out of software lies with me. You also have the ability to get what you want out of your software, and if you want it, you can take on responsibility for it too.
Note: I'm not saying that failling to contribute to any open source project is irresponsible. I'm saying having the option to take responsibility if you want it is a good thing.
Peace,
PFE.
You are right, it does take Firefox longer to run first time. And if this annoys you that is understandable. However the reason for this is important.
Firefox isn't loaded when the operating system starts. Internet Explorer has large portions of itself already in memory when you run it first time, because it is inherently tied to the operating system.
Part of the problem with IE is its inherent ties to the OS, an exploitable bug in IE might also be a bug for the OS. It is therefore a tradeoff between security and usability.
If you are happy with IE because of a dislike of long loading times thats fair enough and I wish you happy browsing. However if you weren't aware already I hope this helps you get the right balance of usability and security for your system.
Peace,
PFE.