Yes, and to further clarify, the 1.5.* and 2.* branches (or at least the latter) will continue to receive security upgrades long after 3.0 is released. People using legacy systems (that's what they are) will continue to enjoy the advantages of Firefox, particularly the security, albeit the lack of new features. I think that's acceptable.
It's really funny how easily some people use the word "never".
Good point, but that's just semantics. There's very little (or nothing) that will last forever. I (and the rest of the world, mind you) use the word "never" to mean a very, very long time.
Your view of the future is overly optimistic, and I would be very happy to see that happen. It's very unrealistic, IMO.
So, to correct my statement: I think IE will not fall under the 30% market share for as long as Windows is the dominant desktop distribution. And that is not changing for a few decades, I think.
Do most people really "choose", or do they just use it because they don't know better? I think it's the latter.
That's true. But you should ask yourself whether most of these people even care about knowing better. My guess is they don't.
Installing Firefox or any other browser only takes a few seconds.
That's what it takes you to install Firefox. You do realize there's people that never download or install programs, and people who don't even know what downloading or installing means, don't you? How many people know what a browser is? And again, how many people care? That point is mute unless you plan on going around the world installing Firefox on all computers and showing people how to use it. No, it's not the same. The icons are different. Laugh all you want, that's the reaction of a real user.
Your second point is, again, very true, but unrealistic. People don't care about this. They want their browser to work. Is it unfair that Micrsoft is taking advantage of this and promoting the creation of IE-exclusive websites? Hell yes! But, in the end, it's all about giving the users the best experience possible. You're not doing that by supporting a project like this.
My only hope is that webmasters will become more aware of web standards and develop sites that are compatible for most browsers, IE tweaks and all. That's as good as it gets, IMO.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I understand your position as someone who does a lot of webmastering. I've done it myself, and yes, it's frustating.
I have to disagree with you, though. People have a right to choose, and they have the right to choose the crappy browser that breaks standards and monopolizes the desktops. I think IE will never fall under the 30% market share (note: completely made-up percentage), if only because there's people who just don't use their computers or the Internet enough to even merit downloading another browser. Those people will use whatever's intalled on their computer, and they won't care as long as it works.
What I'm trying to say is that you will always have to tweak your sites to work on IE. IE will always have a significant market share, and I don't see the day when they become fully compliant. They will fix some CSS bugs because of the pressure other browsers are exserting, but they'll probably stop half-way. It's just not efficient in terms of investment and revenue.
Annoying IE users will only drive them away from your websites. But maybe you'll be happy seeing the IE percentage go down and think of it as a good thing. I just think it's plain wrong. People just want to surf the web, why do you they have to pay for some stupid (for them) browser war?
Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?
Absolutely.
I would like to point out that this "project" has been pushed (possibly by its creator) on SpreadFirefox.com for quite some time, but it has met with the appropriate response: NO. Link to the post. I'm an active SFX member, and I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.
I know the creator of those scripts is trying to help, but his/her aim is terrible.
I'd say that the point where we differ the most is that, for me, 4 would be distributed among 1 and 2. Agreed, if you're building server software it is clear that the GUI will probably not even be installed, but I think TFA focuses more on the desktop market. If I'm doing an app, I do it right, and that means that if it has a GUI, it better be a good one (consistent, easy, intuitive, clean, etc).
I use the Gimp, and I hate its interface. You eventually get used to it, but it makes the learning curve so much harder. I'm not some GUI guru, but I know that something that can never be missing is consistency. I can go to any (modern) Windows box in the world and I will know where to find Start, Control Panel, etc. Even in a new and unknown Microsoft application I will know how to use menus, how to configure things, what alerts I can expect from certain actions, where buttons are located, and so on. It has been my experience using Linux GUIs that even the most trivial alert window requires me to inspect it to realize what happened and to find the button or option I want to click. Most users will give up right away after something like this, and that is unacceptable.
I think GUI, despite being prevalent for quite some time, have been very, very low in the priority list of Linux developers. The community has focused more on the low-level, kernel and architecture areas, and the rest has suffered from it. IMO, GUIs in Linux have always been an afterthought, and that's the reason they suck so much (again, IMO).
This sheds light in a key problem with open-source software: developers will work in what they want to work, not necessaily in what needs to be done.
egoistic recreation/bastardization of standards just to be as incompatible as possible with the rest of the world
That's not egoistic. They break several standards to maintain a strong grip on the market, and also because it's sometimes very costly to live up to them word by word, so it's cheaper just to take the easy way. This is all maximization of profit. I think GP is very right.
It is true that they shouldn't expect their users to suck all of their capacity around the clock, but I don't think that gives them the right to enforce measures for them not to do it. They offered a service that allowed their users a certain bandwidth, usually around the clock, and the (note: paying) subscribers have the right to use as much as they want from that service.
I agree that it is not feasible to maintain such a service under the assumption that many subscribers will be sucking the life out of it 24 hours a day, but that is a problem of the ISP. If they want to offer a more restrictive service, then they should inform their subscribers of what they are receiving for their money. As far as I know, they offer a fixed bandwidth which is available throughout the day. If that is so, then subscribers should get exactly that and they shouldn't be blocked or filtered because of their activities.
If they want to change the rules of the game, they should put them on paper.
Quite frankly I don't think the end users are so selective about their patching. If you see a critical patch, you apply it and that's that. In a corporate setting they may be more selective, but the average Joe goes all the way.
I would like to see a site that *does not* have a comprehensive list and instead shows something a little more useful, like the extensions that are not in alpha or beta stages, and the extensions that are not the "my first useless geek" extension. A list of good extensions.
I like addons. But I think it still has a long way to go to become user friendly. On the other hand, extensions are generally aimed to more tech-savvy users, because average users may be afraid to try them. Are these sites aiming at the right demographics or leaving out a very large potential audience?
I think he is. But he also has a point. It's not so far-fetched to think Google will get into this eventually, even if they joke about it know. They already have orkut, you know? And online dating services are moderately popular and an interesting type of site for advertising.
More generally, Google <insert whatever word you want> Beta is not unlikely to happen eventually.
It would also make certain types or terrorist acts much easier and traffic accidents much more catastrophic. Pile up? Try pile down. Even with AI I don't think accidents or intentional tampering can be completely avoided. Flying cars is a neat idea on paper and on TV. Let's leave them there.
Punctuation is overrated it's not like you cannot understanding everything I'm saying because I'm not using periods commas colons semi-colons or parenthesis I wonder if those count as punctiation anyway right I mean we should just dump all of thoseandgetridofspacesandapostropheswhilewereatit
Slashdot Mirror
Slow day, I guess...
Yes, and to further clarify, the 1.5.* and 2.* branches (or at least the latter) will continue to receive security upgrades long after 3.0 is released. People using legacy systems (that's what they are) will continue to enjoy the advantages of Firefox, particularly the security, albeit the lack of new features. I think that's acceptable.
ASCII? In my day we had to see the boobies in binary! We had to bang our heads against the screen to make them jiggle, and we liked it!
I'll be satisfied with a year of good music. My guess is there's not enough.
Good point, but that's just semantics. There's very little (or nothing) that will last forever. I (and the rest of the world, mind you) use the word "never" to mean a very, very long time.
Your view of the future is overly optimistic, and I would be very happy to see that happen. It's very unrealistic, IMO.
So, to correct my statement: I think IE will not fall under the 30% market share for as long as Windows is the dominant desktop distribution. And that is not changing for a few decades, I think.
That's true. But you should ask yourself whether most of these people even care about knowing better. My guess is they don't.
That's what it takes you to install Firefox. You do realize there's people that never download or install programs, and people who don't even know what downloading or installing means, don't you? How many people know what a browser is? And again, how many people care? That point is mute unless you plan on going around the world installing Firefox on all computers and showing people how to use it. No, it's not the same. The icons are different. Laugh all you want, that's the reaction of a real user.
Your second point is, again, very true, but unrealistic. People don't care about this. They want their browser to work. Is it unfair that Micrsoft is taking advantage of this and promoting the creation of IE-exclusive websites? Hell yes! But, in the end, it's all about giving the users the best experience possible. You're not doing that by supporting a project like this.
My only hope is that webmasters will become more aware of web standards and develop sites that are compatible for most browsers, IE tweaks and all. That's as good as it gets, IMO.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I understand your position as someone who does a lot of webmastering. I've done it myself, and yes, it's frustating.
I have to disagree with you, though. People have a right to choose, and they have the right to choose the crappy browser that breaks standards and monopolizes the desktops. I think IE will never fall under the 30% market share (note: completely made-up percentage), if only because there's people who just don't use their computers or the Internet enough to even merit downloading another browser. Those people will use whatever's intalled on their computer, and they won't care as long as it works.
What I'm trying to say is that you will always have to tweak your sites to work on IE. IE will always have a significant market share, and I don't see the day when they become fully compliant. They will fix some CSS bugs because of the pressure other browsers are exserting, but they'll probably stop half-way. It's just not efficient in terms of investment and revenue.
Annoying IE users will only drive them away from your websites. But maybe you'll be happy seeing the IE percentage go down and think of it as a good thing. I just think it's plain wrong. People just want to surf the web, why do you they have to pay for some stupid (for them) browser war?
Absolutely.
I would like to point out that this "project" has been pushed (possibly by its creator) on SpreadFirefox.com for quite some time, but it has met with the appropriate response: NO. Link to the post. I'm an active SFX member, and I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.
I know the creator of those scripts is trying to help, but his/her aim is terrible.
I'd say that the point where we differ the most is that, for me, 4 would be distributed among 1 and 2. Agreed, if you're building server software it is clear that the GUI will probably not even be installed, but I think TFA focuses more on the desktop market. If I'm doing an app, I do it right, and that means that if it has a GUI, it better be a good one (consistent, easy, intuitive, clean, etc).
I use the Gimp, and I hate its interface. You eventually get used to it, but it makes the learning curve so much harder. I'm not some GUI guru, but I know that something that can never be missing is consistency. I can go to any (modern) Windows box in the world and I will know where to find Start, Control Panel, etc. Even in a new and unknown Microsoft application I will know how to use menus, how to configure things, what alerts I can expect from certain actions, where buttons are located, and so on. It has been my experience using Linux GUIs that even the most trivial alert window requires me to inspect it to realize what happened and to find the button or option I want to click. Most users will give up right away after something like this, and that is unacceptable.
I think GUI, despite being prevalent for quite some time, have been very, very low in the priority list of Linux developers. The community has focused more on the low-level, kernel and architecture areas, and the rest has suffered from it. IMO, GUIs in Linux have always been an afterthought, and that's the reason they suck so much (again, IMO).
This sheds light in a key problem with open-source software: developers will work in what they want to work, not necessaily in what needs to be done.
Yeah, mod me down, see if I care.
That's not egoistic. They break several standards to maintain a strong grip on the market, and also because it's sometimes very costly to live up to them word by word, so it's cheaper just to take the easy way. This is all maximization of profit. I think GP is very right.
It is true that they shouldn't expect their users to suck all of their capacity around the clock, but I don't think that gives them the right to enforce measures for them not to do it. They offered a service that allowed their users a certain bandwidth, usually around the clock, and the (note: paying) subscribers have the right to use as much as they want from that service.
I agree that it is not feasible to maintain such a service under the assumption that many subscribers will be sucking the life out of it 24 hours a day, but that is a problem of the ISP. If they want to offer a more restrictive service, then they should inform their subscribers of what they are receiving for their money. As far as I know, they offer a fixed bandwidth which is available throughout the day. If that is so, then subscribers should get exactly that and they shouldn't be blocked or filtered because of their activities.
If they want to change the rules of the game, they should put them on paper.
Quite frankly I don't think the end users are so selective about their patching. If you see a critical patch, you apply it and that's that. In a corporate setting they may be more selective, but the average Joe goes all the way.
I would say that at this point there's nothing you can do or try to do that Google hasn't done or is planning to do.
All betas, of course.
Heh, so how do you roll it then? And how do you keep it rolled?
I would like to see a site that *does not* have a comprehensive list and instead shows something a little more useful, like the extensions that are not in alpha or beta stages, and the extensions that are not the "my first useless geek" extension. A list of good extensions.
I like addons. But I think it still has a long way to go to become user friendly. On the other hand, extensions are generally aimed to more tech-savvy users, because average users may be afraid to try them. Are these sites aiming at the right demographics or leaving out a very large potential audience?
Hey, it worked!
Not as cute as this: http://www.cuteoverload.com/.
LOLZ!!!! BRB CYA!1
I think he is. But he also has a point. It's not so far-fetched to think Google will get into this eventually, even if they joke about it know. They already have orkut, you know? And online dating services are moderately popular and an interesting type of site for advertising.
More generally, Google <insert whatever word you want> Beta is not unlikely to happen eventually.
Well, thank you mister smarty pants.
TOO. MUCH. PINK.
You must be having a blast. :-P
He's got a list of pre-made groupthink rants about the 5 or 6 topics that make the headlines every day :-).
I agree, though, and thanks for the info on WebMail, didn't know about that one.
Where? Where? I don't see them...
It would also make certain types or terrorist acts much easier and traffic accidents much more catastrophic. Pile up? Try pile down. Even with AI I don't think accidents or intentional tampering can be completely avoided. Flying cars is a neat idea on paper and on TV. Let's leave them there.
Punctuation is overrated it's not like you cannot understanding everything I'm saying because I'm not using periods commas colons semi-colons or parenthesis I wonder if those count as punctiation anyway right I mean we should just dump all of thoseandgetridofspacesandapostropheswhilewereatit