You are, of course, aware that Adobe is open sourcing Flex, also?
Anyway, I like Flex.
Joe.
Yes and incidentally they're open sourcing it for the same reason. You see, they're feeling the heat from Microsoft.NET. They (and well the people around them, the Flash community, me including) knew about Silverlight for years now (WPF/E) and what it means for Flash as a product.
I like Flex too, but it didn't have the uptake Adobe/Macromedia hoped for, so from a 5-figure server edition for big enterprises (they sold less then 200 licenses of Flex 1), it went through cheap IDE, and will now be open sourced. If they had succeeded they wouldn't so drastically change their plans.
This is not where we're going. With multi-core processors on the table.
I've read the article in your "clue". For me, this clue just shows the Firefox team is clueless, and that's why I've given up any hope on it.
Lazlo is just a failed open-source version of Flex-like framework. They open-sourced it since they couldn't sell it.
Microsoft.NET and JavaFX are full-blown languages with great idea of what a thread is, and they are multi-core ready from the onset.
Adobe's AIR is just a way to publish your web work as a desktop gadget. They recognize the lack of threads as a serious problem and actually just a month ago Adobe released a new version of Flash Player 9 that has split the engine into multiple threads that takes advantage of multi-core CPU-s. Don't be surprized if the next Flash Player adds multi-thread support in the user space as well (i.e. ablity to spawn threads in ActionScript).
So this is where we are ACTUALLY going. Firefox will see their mistakes one day, but it'll be too late.
Wasn't this done with MS in Windows 98, the Active Desktop? See how well that worked? Why would anyone want this?
That was done in 1998. It was early Web 1.0, and people didn't dig web stuff so much. But now, it's different. There are plenty of uses for a web based desktop, and to quote their site:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@pyrodesktop.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
I think Microsoft is totally shaking in their boots at the thought of Pyro: just consider, a connected, integrated, web desktop. It's just like.NET 3.0 except it's much slower, much less secure and runs on JavaScript. Complete winner!
He's not wrong, he just has a lot of faith in type theory. This is the principle behind JNode and Singularity.
If you'll be claiming that he's not wrong (i.e. that running everything in a virtual machine in ring 0 brings much better performance), at least don't support this with examples of experimental OS that are lacking in the performance department (despite the little win of software-only context switch).
First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not" Winnie The Pooh
Modern computers don't make everything "wait" for something to happen. They multitask. Even modern browsers (Opera, IE, Safari) multitask. Firefox doesn't.
For Firefox, loading of several files over the network is a Very Important Thing, and it'll just hang in mid-action waiting for the network to say something. That's pretty bad.
JavaScript has no concept of threads. Also it has no concept of security, apart from the "100% trusted" or "100% not-trusted" sandbox.
It'll be very funny to watch this project fail into obscurity, for those interested. I'm not.
The whole idea is to create a new FF version that does the things that Opera or K-Meleon do but still carries the branding of Firefox. That name has a certain degree of reconizability and a lite version would be useful.
When they do this "lite" they better give it to me too, since on my 3 GHz machine, Firefox is the worst effin performer out of all other browsers use and test on (Safari, IE, Opera).
And consider Firefox is already *THE* "lite browser" effort by Mozilla.
I've heard people tell me "see how everyone laughed at Mozilla for making a browser that runs on JavaScript, but see 'em now!", citing the stats. Yea, well I still laugh at them seeing how this browser performs, and I assure you, speed isn't the reason Firefox is adopted.
Lite version of Firefox is not going to be ever possible unless they drop XUL completely and leave Gecko + 100% binary UI.
You'd better do some research on... well, English grammar, first, but also check out systems like Java, Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight (and the rest of.NET), and so on. It is possible to run untrusted code in the same address space as trusted code. It should therefore be possible to run untrusted code in ring 0. Done right, you'd get a performance boost to everything, by running absolutely everything (except legacy apps) in "kernel mode" / ring 0, and no more security risk than you had before.
But of course. Running drivers on JavaScript in ring 0. You're a fucking performance genius.
What is impossible is fast thread switching, kernel synchronization primitives, access to the network stack (wireless!), ring-0 CPU instructions, real-time timing access, and the huge reduction in context switches / cache flushes that comes from running within the kernel (moving code to user-mode increases latency by a factor of 3, roughly). Kiss the lag-free desktop goodbye as hard drive latency skyrockets, watch your 3D framerate drop by 70%, see your webcam stutter into unusability.
Nice rant there. Let me summarize it:
"What is impossible in user space driver is kernel space features".
No shit. That's the point of a user-space driver. If you give a user-space app access to ring-0, it's no longer user-space. Or did you imagine there's some sort of unwet water that the stupid developers of the kernel keep missing.
The user-space driver is not set to replace all kernel mode drivers. Just like Vista, it's set to replace *some* of them, for example USB devices with low traffic. It's not a solution from heaven, it's just a reduction of fail-prone pieces that lurk in your system.
If you RTFA you probably had to read the summary as well where it's said user-space drivers aren't suitable for high-performance gear such as graphics cards.
Moreover, with proper type chicken, you c'd p'tentially run crappy drivers inside the kernel at no bigger risk than in user mode.
Yea sure, with proper type of glasses everything around you will be pink. You better do a research on why bad code running in ring 0 can always hang the system never mind the API.
A stable kernel api for drivers is what linux needs as proprietary driver writers make poor quality and buggy implementations.
You can't have a "stable kernel api for drivers". The kernel might be super stable but since it gives kernel mode access to the drivers, the drivers can still crash the system if poorly written.
That's after all, the entire problem, and why we have userspace drivers. And why Vista has userspace drivers.
dude when I was talking about the hash and the salt, I'm talking about the master password. the idea is, you don't store the master password anywhere on the disk.
It would seem that your program's author just didn't know where the key way, or it would have been able to read the Opera passwords too. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong (not a big Opera user), but to me it sounds like security through obscurity.
You can store a SHA-1 (say) hash of the password. Then you can check if a pass is correct, but can't obtain a password having the hash (without a brute force attack that'll take quite some long time, and you should notice your CPU going at 100% for days).
The actual passwords can then be encrypted using the real password as a salt, and few tricks would prevent the password store being an easy brute force attack as well (such as not storing the same header on all machines which would reveal the password).
Honestly, Google Docs is more usable, but ajaxWrite shows off how XUL can look exactly like a local application.
That's your problem. Approaching everything from the "looks just like" and "pretends to be" perspective. Skinning his apps is the least possible problem a "Web OS" will have.
I'd think more along the fact that his "OS" doesn't have a security model, it runs on JavaScript (slow as hell, and Firefox is slower than slower than hell), it can't access local computer resources (hardware acceleration, big local files, play movies).
So you see, it's quite limited in what you can do. He can basically concentrate on the "faking it" part but that will get him nowhere with most users, which are looking for something *USEFUL* to do in that OS, that they can't do in their OS.
The quote was in the context of average users--people like my mother--who are not thinking about concepts like memory management. The idea is that Parakey accomplishes the functions of an OS (and much more) from an *end-user's* perspective.
Last time you went with the "end-user" perspective I asked you: ok let it play a DVD then.
One day you'll realize you had to concentrate on the "much more" part that makes an online app/ui unique and market this as an "extension" of people's OS, versus pit your product against the OS (seemingly) a user already has (and will run your "OS" into).
In an OS, people don't just wanna open HTML gadgets that look like Window apps an pretend they're in an OS.
That's what geeks want. Have realistic shadows and when you make a screenshot, and show it to your buddies, they'll say "oh what window manager is this? Is it a gnome/kde skin or something?", then you'll sit proud and say "No! It's an HTML/JS app!". You'll get geek scores, but people can't care less what you faked since they still can't run your OS without *their* OS, and can't run their movies, games and apps in your "OS".
Also what kinda OS is when you can't install third party apps into it. You see, I hope you do NOT allow third party apps in your OS, since they all have access to each other in a shared JS environment. When the first app that steals private info blows the news 'omg Parakey stole my credit card!!', you'll realize yet another reason you can't fake an OS in a browser and get away with it.
No you're wrong I'm afraid, the HTML5 that W3C is talking about *is* based on WhatWG's HTML5.
It's written "WHATWG" by the way, for the same reason you don't write UspTo. But that's not important.
WHATWG are the group that pitched W3C to consider HTML5. W3C's HTML5 isn't based on anything right now since it doesn't exist yet. It may include in some form some HTML5 features, but don't delude yourself that W3C will beat the heck out of it, until it's a tortured mix of their XHTML2 standard and WHATWG's HTML5.
Actually HTML5 is largely a result of work by the main browser makers, except Microsoft I believe. Hixie from Opera is the project lead of the WhatWG which was created to extend HTML to make it more applicable for web applications. It fixes a lot of the problems with both HTML 4 and XHTML, and its backwards compatible with *both*.
This is not the HTML5 W3C is talking about. They want to make their own. And just like XHTML1.1 and especially XHTML2, I suspect it'll be largely bullshit.
Microsoft is working on XHTML support in IE8 now, and right at this point W3C comes out and says "ok XHTML wasn't exactly what we needed". Idiotic.
Now that we know W3C doesn't know what they're doing (or what we're doing), maybe we can finally see a better push of the set of technologies in WHATWG's HTML5. It's actually a pretty neat standard and a proper superset of HTML4, adding stuff we sorely missed since the web came into being.
You see, W3C is about "semantics and clean code" to aid computer based search. Google says they don't know what they're doing. I'd trust the search engine vendor to know better. WHATWG is about practical solutions to existing problems, without throwing away what we already have.
You're very good at math, bravo! This means a whole dollar and a half for each year you spent using Hotmail. I'm salivating at the prospect of this refund already. There should be plenty inside to cover the fees of my lawyer too.
Man you're so convincing, you gotta get a lawyer and demand your money back right now. If someone laughs, ignore 'em, it's because they're jealous they didn't think of it first.
I'll try, with your, permission, the same business model to see if I can get the New York representatives pay me, because of all the billboards.
Seriously, this is just too fucking much. Made worse of course by the fact that Slashdot is now partaking on the page impression revenue. Next comes Digg and every other "news" website. Spreading FUD on teh interwebs sure is profitable!
In the real world newspapers and media stand behind what they post, if they don't, their image suffers significantly and they lose audience.
Slashdot is hiding behind the fact it posts someone else's crap, and on top of that with Firehose it can claim we alone picked the article for publishing (as if they are not green flagged manually in the end again).
Solution is to seek sites that are willing to stand behind their *own* analysis and reporting.
He said that that he's never had a mortgage and "he lives cheaply".
Fromt he money he takes for signing autographs... I wonder why people stand behind this guy as of yet. We don't need nutcases defending free software anymore.
Maybe it helped in the early days, but right now free software has picked momentum, and needs a real world integration/solutions.
Guys like Richard Stallman will only make it worse at this point, for the same reason he made it better at the start.
Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?
I wish. If the government made everything that couldn't actually work illegal or unpatentable, it'd implode upon itself.
Consider DRM which works only with cooperating drivers that disable recording during play of protected content. Yes you still have the analog hole, but it's no longer *convenient* to record shows. Requires another machine/device and less than stellar quality.
And trust me when I say I'm going to be watching progression VERY carefully on this. I have the same concerns you do.
I'd rather not be Chicken Little, though.
Funny thing is, while you're watching carefully, the situation in US is already out of control. What did you do when the Petriot Act was abused? How about FBI and CIA's spying activities taking the form of a more generic spying, even of non-terrorists. You watched.
When this goes out of hand, you'll watch again. I'd rather whine and riot, and take it too seriously, it's only marginally better, but better.
Enjoy this while it lasts, before you know it Microsoft will come and kick Firefox in the nuts. The stats you see are result of more than 7 years IE abandonment.
I'm not even commenting on which browser is better, that's not of significance*.
Slashdot Mirror
You are, of course, aware that Adobe is open sourcing Flex, also?
.NET. They (and well the people around them, the Flash community, me including) knew about Silverlight for years now (WPF/E) and what it means for Flash as a product.
Anyway, I like Flex.
Joe.
Yes and incidentally they're open sourcing it for the same reason. You see, they're feeling the heat from Microsoft
I like Flex too, but it didn't have the uptake Adobe/Macromedia hoped for, so from a 5-figure server edition for big enterprises (they sold less then 200 licenses of Flex 1), it went through cheap IDE, and will now be open sourced. If they had succeeded they wouldn't so drastically change their plans.
This isn't where we are now, it's where we're all going; see the MS, Adobe, lazlo and JavaFx frameworks for the proof.
.NET and JavaFX are full-blown languages with great idea of what a thread is, and they are multi-core ready from the onset.
Here's a clue
This is not where we're going. With multi-core processors on the table.
I've read the article in your "clue". For me, this clue just shows the Firefox team is clueless, and that's why I've given up any hope on it.
Lazlo is just a failed open-source version of Flex-like framework. They open-sourced it since they couldn't sell it.
Microsoft
Adobe's AIR is just a way to publish your web work as a desktop gadget. They recognize the lack of threads as a serious problem and actually just a month ago Adobe released a new version of Flash Player 9 that has split the engine into multiple threads that takes advantage of multi-core CPU-s. Don't be surprized if the next Flash Player adds multi-thread support in the user space as well (i.e. ablity to spawn threads in ActionScript).
So this is where we are ACTUALLY going. Firefox will see their mistakes one day, but it'll be too late.
Wasn't this done with MS in Windows 98, the Active Desktop? See how well that worked? Why would anyone want this?
.NET 3.0 except it's much slower, much less secure and runs on JavaScript. Complete winner!
That was done in 1998. It was early Web 1.0, and people didn't dig web stuff so much. But now, it's different. There are plenty of uses for a web based desktop, and to quote their site:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@pyrodesktop.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
I think Microsoft is totally shaking in their boots at the thought of Pyro: just consider, a connected, integrated, web desktop. It's just like
He's not wrong, he just has a lot of faith in type theory. This is the principle behind JNode and Singularity.
If you'll be claiming that he's not wrong (i.e. that running everything in a virtual machine in ring 0 brings much better performance), at least don't support this with examples of experimental OS that are lacking in the performance department (despite the little win of software-only context switch).
Didn't we decide this was a bad idea when MS did it?
We? Mr. Gates is this you?
First, all computers wait at the same speed, and presumably the point here is to accomplish something heavily dependent on the network. Even the best network (in my experience) winds up being the limiting factor.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not"
Winnie The Pooh
Modern computers don't make everything "wait" for something to happen. They multitask. Even modern browsers (Opera, IE, Safari) multitask. Firefox doesn't.
For Firefox, loading of several files over the network is a Very Important Thing, and it'll just hang in mid-action waiting for the network to say something. That's pretty bad.
JavaScript has no concept of threads. Also it has no concept of security, apart from the "100% trusted" or "100% not-trusted" sandbox.
It'll be very funny to watch this project fail into obscurity, for those interested. I'm not.
The whole idea is to create a new FF version that does the things that Opera or K-Meleon do but still carries the branding of Firefox. That name has a certain degree of reconizability and a lite version would be useful.
When they do this "lite" they better give it to me too, since on my 3 GHz machine, Firefox is the worst effin performer out of all other browsers use and test on (Safari, IE, Opera).
And consider Firefox is already *THE* "lite browser" effort by Mozilla.
I've heard people tell me "see how everyone laughed at Mozilla for making a browser that runs on JavaScript, but see 'em now!", citing the stats. Yea, well I still laugh at them seeing how this browser performs, and I assure you, speed isn't the reason Firefox is adopted.
Lite version of Firefox is not going to be ever possible unless they drop XUL completely and leave Gecko + 100% binary UI.
You'd better do some research on... well, English grammar, first, but also check out systems like Java, Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight (and the rest of .NET), and so on. It is possible to run untrusted code in the same address space as trusted code. It should therefore be possible to run untrusted code in ring 0. Done right, you'd get a performance boost to everything, by running absolutely everything (except legacy apps) in "kernel mode" / ring 0, and no more security risk than you had before.
But of course. Running drivers on JavaScript in ring 0. You're a fucking performance genius.
What is impossible is fast thread switching, kernel synchronization primitives, access to the network stack (wireless!), ring-0 CPU instructions, real-time timing access, and the huge reduction in context switches / cache flushes that comes from running within the kernel (moving code to user-mode increases latency by a factor of 3, roughly). Kiss the lag-free desktop goodbye as hard drive latency skyrockets, watch your 3D framerate drop by 70%, see your webcam stutter into unusability.
Nice rant there. Let me summarize it:
"What is impossible in user space driver is kernel space features".
No shit. That's the point of a user-space driver. If you give a user-space app access to ring-0, it's no longer user-space. Or did you imagine there's some sort of unwet water that the stupid developers of the kernel keep missing.
The user-space driver is not set to replace all kernel mode drivers. Just like Vista, it's set to replace *some* of them, for example USB devices with low traffic. It's not a solution from heaven, it's just a reduction of fail-prone pieces that lurk in your system.
If you RTFA you probably had to read the summary as well where it's said user-space drivers aren't suitable for high-performance gear such as graphics cards.
Moreover, with proper type chicken, you c'd p'tentially run crappy drivers inside the kernel at no bigger risk than in user mode.
Yea sure, with proper type of glasses everything around you will be pink. You better do a research on why bad code running in ring 0 can always hang the system never mind the API.
A stable kernel api for drivers is what linux needs as proprietary driver writers make poor quality and buggy implementations.
You can't have a "stable kernel api for drivers". The kernel might be super stable but since it gives kernel mode access to the drivers, the drivers can still crash the system if poorly written.
That's after all, the entire problem, and why we have userspace drivers. And why Vista has userspace drivers.
dude when I was talking about the hash and the salt, I'm talking about the master password. the idea is, you don't store the master password anywhere on the disk.
It would seem that your program's author just didn't know where the key way, or it would have been able to read the Opera passwords too. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong (not a big Opera user), but to me it sounds like security through obscurity.
You can store a SHA-1 (say) hash of the password. Then you can check if a pass is correct, but can't obtain a password having the hash (without a brute force attack that'll take quite some long time, and you should notice your CPU going at 100% for days).
The actual passwords can then be encrypted using the real password as a salt, and few tricks would prevent the password store being an easy brute force attack as well (such as not storing the same header on all machines which would reveal the password).
Honestly, Google Docs is more usable, but ajaxWrite shows off how XUL can look exactly like a local application.
That's your problem. Approaching everything from the "looks just like" and "pretends to be" perspective. Skinning his apps is the least possible problem a "Web OS" will have.
I'd think more along the fact that his "OS" doesn't have a security model, it runs on JavaScript (slow as hell, and Firefox is slower than slower than hell), it can't access local computer resources (hardware acceleration, big local files, play movies).
So you see, it's quite limited in what you can do. He can basically concentrate on the "faking it" part but that will get him nowhere with most users, which are looking for something *USEFUL* to do in that OS, that they can't do in their OS.
The quote was in the context of average users--people like my mother--who are not thinking about concepts like memory management. The idea is that Parakey accomplishes the functions of an OS (and much more) from an *end-user's* perspective.
Last time you went with the "end-user" perspective I asked you: ok let it play a DVD then.
One day you'll realize you had to concentrate on the "much more" part that makes an online app/ui unique and market this as an "extension" of people's OS, versus pit your product against the OS (seemingly) a user already has (and will run your "OS" into).
In an OS, people don't just wanna open HTML gadgets that look like Window apps an pretend they're in an OS.
That's what geeks want. Have realistic shadows and when you make a screenshot, and show it to your buddies, they'll say "oh what window manager is this? Is it a gnome/kde skin or something?", then you'll sit proud and say "No! It's an HTML/JS app!". You'll get geek scores, but people can't care less what you faked since they still can't run your OS without *their* OS, and can't run their movies, games and apps in your "OS".
Also what kinda OS is when you can't install third party apps into it. You see, I hope you do NOT allow third party apps in your OS, since they all have access to each other in a shared JS environment. When the first app that steals private info blows the news 'omg Parakey stole my credit card!!', you'll realize yet another reason you can't fake an OS in a browser and get away with it.
No you're wrong I'm afraid, the HTML5 that W3C is talking about *is* based on WhatWG's HTML5.
It's written "WHATWG" by the way, for the same reason you don't write UspTo. But that's not important.
WHATWG are the group that pitched W3C to consider HTML5. W3C's HTML5 isn't based on anything right now since it doesn't exist yet. It may include in some form some HTML5 features, but don't delude yourself that W3C will beat the heck out of it, until it's a tortured mix of their XHTML2 standard and WHATWG's HTML5.
Actually HTML5 is largely a result of work by the main browser makers, except Microsoft I believe. Hixie from Opera is the project lead of the WhatWG which was created to extend HTML to make it more applicable for web applications. It fixes a lot of the problems with both HTML 4 and XHTML, and its backwards compatible with *both*.
This is not the HTML5 W3C is talking about. They want to make their own. And just like XHTML1.1 and especially XHTML2, I suspect it'll be largely bullshit.
Microsoft is working on XHTML support in IE8 now, and right at this point W3C comes out and says "ok XHTML wasn't exactly what we needed". Idiotic.
Now that we know W3C doesn't know what they're doing (or what we're doing), maybe we can finally see a better push of the set of technologies in WHATWG's HTML5. It's actually a pretty neat standard and a proper superset of HTML4, adding stuff we sorely missed since the web came into being.
You see, W3C is about "semantics and clean code" to aid computer based search. Google says they don't know what they're doing. I'd trust the search engine vendor to know better. WHATWG is about practical solutions to existing problems, without throwing away what we already have.
2 million users for 10 years.
That's 10 * 3 * 52 * 2,000,000 * 10 = 31,200,000,000 ad impressions.
You're very good at math, bravo! This means a whole dollar and a half for each year you spent using Hotmail. I'm salivating at the prospect of this refund already. There should be plenty inside to cover the fees of my lawyer too.
Man you're so convincing, you gotta get a lawyer and demand your money back right now. If someone laughs, ignore 'em, it's because they're jealous they didn't think of it first.
I'll try, with your, permission, the same business model to see if I can get the New York representatives pay me, because of all the billboards.
Seriously, this is just too fucking much. Made worse of course by the fact that Slashdot is now partaking on the page impression revenue. Next comes Digg and every other "news" website. Spreading FUD on teh interwebs sure is profitable!
In the real world newspapers and media stand behind what they post, if they don't, their image suffers significantly and they lose audience.
Slashdot is hiding behind the fact it posts someone else's crap, and on top of that with Firehose it can claim we alone picked the article for publishing (as if they are not green flagged manually in the end again).
Solution is to seek sites that are willing to stand behind their *own* analysis and reporting.
He said that that he's never had a mortgage and "he lives cheaply".
Fromt he money he takes for signing autographs... I wonder why people stand behind this guy as of yet. We don't need nutcases defending free software anymore.
Maybe it helped in the early days, but right now free software has picked momentum, and needs a real world integration/solutions.
Guys like Richard Stallman will only make it worse at this point, for the same reason he made it better at the start.
Maybe the PTO should treat DRM the same as they (supposedly) treat perpetual motion machines, and refuse to assign patents or trademarks on DRM technology because it's physically impossible to implement a working system?
I wish. If the government made everything that couldn't actually work illegal or unpatentable, it'd implode upon itself.
I can't think of a way to stop 'streamripping.'
Consider DRM which works only with cooperating drivers that disable recording during play of protected content. Yes you still have the analog hole, but it's no longer *convenient* to record shows. Requires another machine/device and less than stellar quality.
And trust me when I say I'm going to be watching progression VERY carefully on this. I have the same concerns you do.
I'd rather not be Chicken Little, though.
Funny thing is, while you're watching carefully, the situation in US is already out of control. What did you do when the Petriot Act was abused? How about FBI and CIA's spying activities taking the form of a more generic spying, even of non-terrorists. You watched.
When this goes out of hand, you'll watch again. I'd rather whine and riot, and take it too seriously, it's only marginally better, but better.
Enjoy this while it lasts, before you know it Microsoft will come and kick Firefox in the nuts. The stats you see are result of more than 7 years IE abandonment.
I'm not even commenting on which browser is better, that's not of significance*.
PS: I'm a Firefox user and web developer.