Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Helping Other Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the chrome-outnumbers-opera-on-slashdot dept.

Google 187

Pablo Martinez-Almeida writes "Opera CEO Jon S. von Tetzchner confirms that new entrants in the browser market are raising awareness on the mainstream Internet community about the availability of alternatives to the ubiquitous Internet Explorer. 'How has the emergence of WebKit and Chrome changed the market for you? JvT: The effect of Chrome so far has been 20 percent more downloads every day. It's fairly logical when you think about it, because the biggest hurdle we have is all those people that don't realize there's an alternative in the market. Now, with the launch of Chrome there's focus on the choice of browsers in the market.'

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chrome for me? (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568841)

"How has the emergence of WebKit and Chrome changed the market for you"

When they can be bothered to release a linux version let me know then I might be able to give answer.

Re:Chrome for me? (4, Informative)

MilesAttacca (1016569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568877)

CrossOver Chromium [codeweavers.com] is exactly what you're looking for. It's not officially by Google, but ported by CodeWeavers, the WINE folks.

Re:Chrome for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569063)

Haha hahah.hahaha!

Re:Chrome for me? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569243)

Silly Linux users. They talk if their buggy half-baked knock-offs are seriously a useable alternative.

Sure, Windows software can be buggy, but at least I can kill it if it misbehaves. How can i kill a malfunctioning Linux process if I CAN'T OPEN A GODDAMN TERMINAL beacuse of TOTAL SYSTEM LOCKUPS?!

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

parodyca (890419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569339)

F1

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569431)

You can't kill a process in Windows either if it blue screens. OTH, if you CAN'T OPEN A GODDAMN TERMINAL because of a TOTAL SYSTEM LOCKUP in Linux, you can often ssh in to the machine from another one and kill the process that way. Just because your X Windows system has locked up, that doesn't mean the system is unusable.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

adamruck (638131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569823)

It wasn't a total system lockup then. Also, instead of ssh'ing from another machine if you are using X just press ctl-alt-f1.

Re:Chrome for me? (2, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570817)

just press ctl-alt-f1

I've had X lockups that prevented ctl-alt-f* from working. The gpp wasn't a complete troll, sometimes the virtual consoles are not available. That's why I always run an ssh server on my machines, so I can get access to a command line from the outside if necessary.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570641)

you do realize that BSOD are hardware related......
right?

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569565)

CTR-ALT-BACKSPACE restarts X11, that should do the trick

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

pato101 (851725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570233)

ALT+PRINT_SRCREEN+K will do the trick if X11 is really hung.
And for the GODDAMN PARENT POST, just know that Raising Skinny Elephants is Utterly Boring [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Chrome for me? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570639)

Actually, that kills X11. The display manager (xdm, gdm, kdm, etc) then restarts X11 when it figures out it's dead.

But, given the AC's comment that started this subthread kurfuffle, I don't think he's looking for a button combination, he's looking for a clown to juggle its way across the screen, wink, and point to a magical "make everything better" icon once the system crashes. I haven't used Windows in a while, but apparently it has that feature now? I guess that's what the AC was thinking Linux lacked.

Re:Chrome for me? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569637)

just kill the virtual machine and return to windows

Re:Chrome for me? (5, Informative)

arcade (16638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569671)

I have had system lockups, but not often (not every year). However, if your system locks up "softly" it's very easy:

1. ctrl+alt+F(1-8). That is, F1 - F8. Log in there, find the process, kill it.
2. If the machine doesn't take your keys immediately, try "alt+sysrq r" , which switches your keyboard from XLATE to RAW mode. Then go to 1.
3. ssh into the machine from another machine and kill the misbehaving process
4. ctrl+alt+backspace (kills X and all applications running in your X session).

Knowing the above tricks, you'll get way fewer lockups. The usual suspects for lockups in my case has been funky graphics cards and laptops with funny sleep/suspend/hibernate modes.

Re:Chrome for me? (5, Funny)

Kihaji (612640) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569799)

And how exactly does knowing tips to fix a lockup prevent you from getting lockups? Does your computer all of a sudden realize that it can't win and give in and never lock up again?

Re:Chrome for me? (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571061)

Does your computer all of a sudden realize that it can't win and give in and never lock up again?

Your are finally on the path to becoming a true IT warlord - well done! May your digital subjects fear you, and your scheduled tasks never be tardy.

Re:Chrome for me? (4, Informative)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571293)

I also like Ctrl+Alt+Esc, which gives me a nice X cursor and nukes something I click. I don't know if this works outside of KDE4.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569229)

Chromium is what we want.

CrossOver is not...

CrossOver a POC and nothing more (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571155)

CrossOver Chromium [codeweavers.com] is exactly what you're looking for. It's not officially by Google, but ported by CodeWeavers, the WINE folks.

Before anyone gets their hopes up, let's reprint something from the FAQ re: crossover chromium

Q. Should I run CrossOver Chromium as my main browser?
A. Absolutely not! This is just a proof of concept, for fun, and to showcase what Wine can do. Chromium itself is just beginning. As the Chromium project progresses, they will be providing more compelling support for Mac OS and Linux, particularly with process security and memory management. Those future versions from Chromium will be better suited for daily use than this version.

Now perhaps you had some luck with it, but I found it to be little more than a decent proof of concept. The UI on Fedora 8 was pants, the option/settings pane was useless, and it couldn't deal with the Squid proxy I'm sitting behind. Just sayin'.

Re:Chrome for me? (0, Troll)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569047)

Haha, Linux folk. Release the specs! Ok. No, release the source! Ok. No, port it for us! When you have a marginal market share and an archaic tool chain, don't expect people to accommodate you. But from what I hear, this Linux "community" claims they will do the work if thrown a bone. Let's see it.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569195)

Yeah, it is a bit winy. But I have no doubt that google will eventually release a linux port it if no one else does. I don't believe that they don't already have a linux port in house. So I think there is even less incentive for someone outside to do it, outside of the academic exercise and brief fleeting fame of it. I'd think about helping the port, but it lacks no script and adblock capabilities so I probably wouldn't use it. Once its been linuxized, then I might take a look at incorporating similar features.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569365)

Haha, Linux folk. Release the specs! Ok. No, release the source! Ok. No, port it for us!

People are working on the port, I'm sure.

Keep in mind, it's been out for a grand total of two months. Can you port that fast?

archaic tool chain

You've got something better?

Re:Chrome for me? (-1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569419)

First of all, there is no archaic tool chain. The GNU tool chain is widely used, by serious computer users, on a variety of platforms, including Windows and Mac OS X.

Now, as for releasing specs/source. With specialized hardware, that has niche uses, it is sometimes hard to find a driver even when the specs are released, but for mainstream hardware, yes, we demand specs in order to write drivers. Of course we would like the company to just release the driver source, but I have yet to come across a situation when the specs are released, in full, without royalty, NDA, patent, etc. problems, and then have the community continue to push for an open source driver. I have seen companies release limited specs for one of their products, and no updated specs for future products in that line, and then have developers get pissed and demand source code.

Demands to have something ported for us usually come from novice users who are not able to port software themselves, and are not aware of the extent to which software is ported by others.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569981)

"Demands to have something ported for us usually come from novice users who are not able to port software themselves"

So people who don't write software for fun are novice users? Perhaps some of these people could, but simply don't care to, and are hoping that maybe the paid coders at $PROJECT will do it on the clock, rather than sinking 3 months of their lives into a port that will probably be obsolete by the time they're done and for which they won't be paid a dime.

Sometimes, I have to admit, the "community" comes across as more of a village full of assholes.

Re:Chrome for me? (4, Insightful)

agrounds (227704) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570437)

Demands to have something ported for us usually come from novice users who are not able to port software themselves, and are not aware of the extent to which software is ported by others.

I think labeling users that don't code at that level as 'novice' is disingenuous at best. I have used *nix systems for well over 10 years in my daily life and in my job and have nothing more than a basic understanding of C because the bulk of my work (network engineer) revolves around PERL, AWK, and expect with a healthy dose of Oracle and MySQL. Does that make me a novice user? No, I don't believe so. Users come in all shapes and sizes, and everyone's individual strengths reinforce the community as a whole.

A proper and well-documented OS should be able to support any user that wants to use it without an excessively steep learning curve. Usability of a well-designed tool should never require intimate knowledge of how the tool is constructed.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570825)

It makes you a novice C user. Yeah yeah , I'm picking nits.

Re:Chrome for me? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571235)

Sorry, if you can't program a computer you have no right administrating one. You are obviously not a "casual" user, but very much a "power" user; you know how handle one, install software and such.

Re:Chrome for me? (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570975)

First of all, there is no archaic tool chain.

This is highly subjective. I realize in the *nix world, it is a badge of honor to use command line development tools. Of course, there are people who don't feel the need to lay claim to arbitrary feats, and just want the best tool for the job. The GNU toolchain is old, has seen little innovation, and has not kept up pace with Microsoft and Apple facilities. It is stagnant, except in the eyes of those who take pride in using such archaic and user-unfriendly tools. What's more, it's common to be berated for wanting something more modern, usually taking flak for being a novice or some other unsubstantiated claims regarding ability.

Re:Chrome for me? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569663)

When they can be bothered to release a linux version let me know then I might be able to give answer.

WebKit is open source and as for the Linux version, let me point you towards an Ars Technica article:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2008/09/02/google-unveils-chrome-source-code-and-linux-port [arstechnica.com]

story title edit: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568915)

"Chrome Helping Other Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"

scratch, scratch, scratch:

"Chrome Helping Obscure Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"

if your market share is tiny, then yes, awareness of alternatives helps. but for the big guys: ie and firefox, chrome represents a smaller slice of the piechart

the truth though is that chrome just slows down coders responsible for cross browser testing and compatibility ;-P

its a nice browser though. its dom and javascript quirks seem very safari like. did google base chrome on safari code?

Re:story title edit: (5, Informative)

JeepFanatic (993244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568987)

If I'm not mistaken, Safari uses WebKit [webkit.org] as its rendering engine just like Chrome does. This might account for any similarity in quirky behavior.

someone mod +1 informative please (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569021)

thanks for the info ;-)

Re:someone mod +1 informative please (-1, Redundant)

1stvamp (662375) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570069)

How did you seriously *not* know this?

Re:someone mod +1 informative please (1)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570707)

maybe because its not necessary information to know in most cases?

do you know the metallurgical base of the pistons in your car?

NO?!?!?!

WTF MAN!!!!!

you driver it nearly every day!

Re:someone mod +1 informative please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571441)

do you know the metallurgical base of the pistons in your car?

That would be iron.

Re:story title edit: (1)

tkdtaylor (1039822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569717)

Actually there is different behaviour between Chrome and Safari. I personally had to fix an issue where Safari and Chrome were storing object arrays in the wrong order. Chrome fixed this shortly after release because so many people complained but as far as I know Safari hasn't done anything about it.

Re:story title edit: (1)

Crias (1388217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569749)

You're not mistaken, Chrome in fact does use WebKit as its rendering engine. And it is the same rendering engine Safari uses.

I'm not 100% on what components come from where, but I'm not convinced WebKit is to blame for the Javascript quirks. (DOM may be another matter.)

After all, Chrome actually has its own brand new Javascript engine based on a JSVM called V8 [google.com] . The thing is lightning fast, not going to lie, but I'm thinking they still have a few quirks.

Re:story title edit: (1)

AnotherDaveB (912424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571005)

One of the questions in the interview was, "How has the emergence of WebKit and Chrome changed the market for you?" .

I think an honest answer to that question from Mr Tetzchner would have been to say that Apple's active engagement with webmasters, and their user base's evangelising, has been the most significant factor in any market change.

Re:story title edit: (1)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571149)

You can also configure Konqueror to use Webkit if you really want to.

Re:story title edit: (1)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568999)

Of course it wouldn't slow us down if the standards would be followed more tightly. Then it would come down to more of a who has more/less features or bloat or speed.

Re:story title edit: (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569383)

And one way to ensure the standards are being followed tightly is to have a number of alternative browsers.

Re:story title edit: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569059)

the truth though is that chrome just slows down coders responsible for cross browser testing and compatibility ;-P

Yeah and women's "special plumbing" just slow down medical professionals responsible for keeping people healthy.

And black people just slow down the makeup industry from making efficient use of their product lines and factories churning out stuff for people with pinkish skin.

holy chrome partisan zeal batman (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569137)

i've offended a chrome zealot. less than 3 months after release. i didn't know rabid combative fan bases grew that fast

Re:holy chrome partisan zeal batman (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569665)

So anyone who expresses a point of view different from yours is a "zealot" from a "combative fan base." I guess you would be happier if we all just used IE in Windows.

It's the lack of adherence to standards that creates extra work for web developers, not choice in browsers.

Re:holy chrome partisan zeal batman (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570061)

Well,I don't know about him but I prefer the versatility of Gecko myself. When a customer comes in with older hardware or they only care about speed I can give them Kmeleon [sourceforge.net] ,if they are into the social sites I can give them Flock [flock.com] ,the old folks that still like to download their mail I give Seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] ,and for the everyday Joes I give Firefox [mozilla.com] . I have also started giving out Songbird [getsongbird.com] ,which is also based on FF,thus the Gecko engine,and so far folks are really liking it. If Firefox wants to know where the next "Firefox killer" is going to come from,IMHO they just need to look in the mirror. Their engine is so easy to customize that I wouldn't be surprised if the next big thing ran Gecko under the hood.

Re:story title edit: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569101)

WebKit

Re:story title edit: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569143)

AFAIC chrome and safari both use the same webkit library.

Re:story title edit: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569151)

No, but safari was based on webkit, which is coincidently the same thing google used.
 

Re:story title edit: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569275)

How has the emergence of WebKit and Chrome changed the market for you?/quote?

Try googling Webkit, or looking it up on Wikipedia

Re:story title edit: (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569575)

for the big guys: ie and firefox, chrome represents a smaller slice of the piechart

Frankly, I think awareness of alternatives helps Firefox as much as it helps Opera.

Every user who leaves IE for any other browser makes my job as a web developer that much easier.

the truth though is that chrome just slows down coders responsible for cross browser testing and compatibility

Except that Chrome is based on Webkit, so there aren't going to be many Chrome bugs that aren't also Safari and Konqueror bugs.

More relevantly, all of these browsers follow the standards much more closely than IE. The day IE becomes marginal enough for a website to just throw up a "Get Firefox" banner and stop testing on it is a day life gets much easier.

Easily 90% of the time, when I develop something on Firefox (because of Firebug), it works on Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Epiphany, Opera, Chrome, and iCab, yet fails on IE. This is because every browser other than IE actually cares about standards.

In other words: I would have to do about ten times less work on cross-browser compatibility if IE was gone. Adding Chrome to the mix really doesn't change that.

its dom and javascript quirks seem very safari like. did google base chrome on safari code?

They used Webkit.

The story goes, roughly: KHTML, used by Konqueror (and other parts of KDE), was forked by Apple and used for Safari. Because it was LGPL'd, Apple has to release all their source, at least to the rendering engine, under something called Webkit. And Webkit is used all over the place.

They did, however, write their own Javascript engine. That, or they massively improved Safari's.

Re:story title edit: (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569687)

Out of curiousity, have you tried IE8 beta?

Re:story title edit: (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569719)

Yes. 21/100 on Acid 3

Re:story title edit: (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569579)

"did google base chrome on safari code?"

Yeah, that's what the whole WebKit thing means.

Firefox, as far as the general public is concerned, is still not a 'big guy'. Web traffic numbers can't be used as a very accurate source of how many different people actually use a browser, because people that use Firefox, in general, will visit many more web pages than a casual user who has never heard of it. I can guarantee you if I went around the office here and asked people what Firefox was, at least 9 out of 10 wouln't have even heard of it, and much of the remainder who actually know what it is may not use it. Hell I know for sure at least half of them don't even know what Internet Explorer is...it's just 'The Internet' to them. "Open up Internet Explorer and try to go to Google.com." "Explorer what?"

When Google put the big 'Download Chrome' thing on their homepage for a few days, it got a few extra casual users aware of alternate browsers. Which, as the article stated, increased Opera downloads....and I bet it increased Firefox downloads as well.

Re:story title edit: (1)

Cynic9 (842597) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570427)

Since Firefox has ~20% of the browser market share, I'd say 8 out of 10. And Internet Explorer still is an inferior browser--so are Opera and Chrome IMHO.

Re:story title edit: (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569905)

As someone who works on PCs everyday,I can tell you that while Chrome might be helping in the tech crowd,Joe and Jane home user still thinks Big Blue E=Internet. It has taken me ages to get most of my customers off the Big Blue E,and the only way I pulled it off was showing them the difference in a webpage with Big Blue E VS a webpage with FF and Adblock Plus. Folks can say what they want about JScript rendering and memory leaks,but Adblock Plus and Forecast Fox has helped me switch a lot of folks off the virus laden POS that is the Big Blue E.

Re:story title edit: (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570251)

Folks can say what they want about JScript rendering and memory leaks

The Mozilla folks have really done a good job fixing the memory leaks and improving memory usage in Firefox as of version 3+. There might still be some small leaks here and there (it is very difficult to eliminate them entirely in large enough programs which weren't implemented in a garbage-collected programming language), but for the most part FF3 is pretty good and the excellent addons (flashblock, adblock plus, and noscript being the three most important) really push it over the top and into the number one spot IMHO.

Re:story title edit: (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570141)

"Chrome Helping Other Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"

scratch, scratch, scratch:

"Chrome Helping Obscure Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"

Aren't those nearly equivalent statements, though? Almost all browsers are obscure.

I think we're already there (3, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568947)

I think we're already to the point where many people are aware they have a choice of web browsers. I was watching the news the other night (obviously not MSNBC), and they had a large touch-screen display running a web-browser with multiple tabs - Firefox. They were using it to display charts and other information.

Also, various family members are aware of Firefox, but they have no idea what "chrome" is. So I'm not sure how Chrome is somehow more noticeable to the mainstream, especially since it doesn't add any of the bells-and-whistles type features that typical people notice (security and performance isn't exactly exciting to the average joe).

Re:I think we're already there (1)

JeepFanatic (993244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569023)

When Chrome came out I had many people who never would have any idea about new browsers come to me and ask for my thoughts on it. Any type of Google related news has a way of making it out into the public. As a result, many discussions get started about the benefits of different browsers and even allowed me to mention other browsers to people that they had never heard of before.

Re:I think we're already there (5, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569201)

Ah, yes -- I have a few (not many) family members and older co-workers aware of "FoxFire," too.

Yes, that's what it's always called, an no, no matter how many times I correct them it's always "FoxFire."

Re:I think we're already there (3, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569285)

Every time somebody mentions FoxFire, God strikes a fox with lightning(thus creating a FoxFire).

Re:I think we're already there (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569355)

My grandparents have a series of books entitled Foxfire [wikipedia.org] , so they want to call it that as well. BTW, have you ever seen foxfire (the namesake of the book)? I have in the woods numerous times at night. It's a type of fungus [wikipedia.org] that grows on dead, rotting wood that glows in the dark. It's kind of spooky when you first come across it (like blood from the alien in Predator).

Re:I think we're already there (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569733)

Aye, pretty cool -- but not half as cool as Firefox [imdb.com] , one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies as a kid. Concidentally, for some reason now, when I say the name of this movie out loud, it always comes out as "Foxfire."

It is a strange and funny world we live in.

Re:I think we're already there (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571185)

No, bioluminescence is much cooler than any movie, even if it stars Clint Eastwood.

Re:I think we're already there (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571277)

What if the movie is about bioluminescence, starring Clint Eastwood? Ha!

Re:I think we're already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569705)

My mother calls it foxfire all the time. My friend still calls it firebird. Some even call it phoenix. But its true title should be netscrape, the revenge.

Re:I think we're already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570655)

most of my co-workers and family members call it Mozzarella.

Re:I think we're already there (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569523)

The majority of people do not fully understand what Firefox is. There reason IE remains so popular is that most home computer users think their computer is just another appliance, and they want it to work out of the box like a VCR. So they just start it up for the first time, click "start," see something labelled "internet" and just use it, never even realizing what they are using or what they are doing. It has nothing to do with the technical merits of the web browser, it has to do with people who are not interested in computing beyond the on/off switch.

Re:I think we're already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570503)

I'm really happy I don't have to mess with the VCR's wires or read thousands of pages of manual to be able to use it or have 10 types of cassettes which would require me to buy 10 types of VCRs. To most people, the computer IS the same as their VCR or their toaster. Sure, it's an expensive toaster, but it does the job. These people are actually doing other things in their free time so they don't spend it all learning about their computer. I'd hate to have to spend all my free time just to be able to use the toaster. Amazingly, there are other things out there which are really fun and they're not related to computers which are "for the Internet and for movies." The day geeks are going to understand that and stop mocking normal human beings for having fun and spending time with their children will be the day that normal human beings will start to use alternatives to Microsoft products which came with their computer.

In the name of all the gods, I am a programmer and I use Windows because I'm busy all day studying algorithms, so I don't have time to study Linux and other things (thank all of the gods, all the websites I usually surf work with FF). I consider myself a geek and all my friends have the same opinion about me. I know what the dangers of using Windows and generally Microsoft products are, I avoid them using a router, OpenOffice and a proper browser but that's about it. I've tried Chrome and I'm sure I will slowly move from FF towards it but that won't happen over night. I need some time to adapt. I've tried to switch to Linux but there were just too many things that didn't work out of the box and I rather spend my time covered with math books instead of Linux manuals.

I know that Linux is another operating system, I know I don't fully understand it but I don't have the time to do that so I'm not judging those who don't bother understanding Chrome.

You've made an excellent point but I just had a very strong feeling of supporting it.

Re:I think we're already there (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570939)

And to be honest you can't realy blame them. Just like with cars ( an analogy not always fitting to the computer world) you expect it to run when you buy it and never really care about the details ,important as they might be.

How many people know how extremely important tyres are to the safety of a car? A goog tyre can save you ALLOT of meters when braking in the rain. But people just don't care. Except the few that do like us.

Re:I think we're already there (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569645)

So I'm not sure how Chrome is somehow more noticeable to the mainstream, especially since it doesn't add any of the bells-and-whistles type features that typical people notice (security and performance isn't exactly exciting to the average joe).

Chrome got a line on the Google homepage for a while.

Re:I think we're already there (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569729)

Chrome is installed all over my network, the average (younger) person knows what it is.

Yes, my users have local admin rights, it's easier in the end and they usually abide by the rules. SpiceWorks will tell me about it anyway...

Opera Mozilla (4, Interesting)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25568975)

I used Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Phoenix/Firefox for 9 years. I switched to Opera a few months ago and never looked back.

The 'advertisement banner' was a stigma for me, although now I realise Opera Software are THE innovators.

I realise it's not "open", but I look forward to any JS or rendering optimisations they may do to counter Chrome/FF3.1.

Options are beginning to look like a good thing. Striving to match a rival will only be good for the world (and those of us who develop for the web ftl or ftw).

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

jfsimard79 (1303437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569255)

I also made the switch to Opera 4 months ago. I saw an article about Opera on Slashdot and decided to try it out. I found out it was the best browser and that it saves your bookmarks!

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569261)

I keep trying to switch to Opera -- every couple of months or so I make a concerted effort. However, the lack of an easy-to-use extension system (and the presence of ads -- ads? I had forgotten the web had ads!) keep bringing me back to Firefox. I also can't seem to import certain certificates into Opera -- haven't really delved into the problem, so I don't know if there's a solution somewhere out tere.

More importantly, get me NoScript working on Opera, and I'm sold. (That's even more important that getting rid of ads!)

Re:Opera Mozilla (3, Informative)

Kyro (302315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569337)

I use per-site preferences instead of noscript when I use Opera.
At the moment I use it with Javascript turned on in the main preferences and then when I come to a site with completely intrusive ads (hello /.) I use the site-preferences to turn off Javascript for that domain.

I just right click and choose "Edit site preferences". It's great!
I just can't believe google haven't got gmail working with opera correctly yet, it's a bit buggy.

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569515)

Do you turn off JavaScript for all of Slashdot, or just for the adserver domain? You see, that's my problem -- I'd like JavaScript to work for the top domain that I'm visiting (i.e., Slashdot), but not for scripts loaded from the adservers that are included in the HTML (Doubleclick, Tacoda.net, etc.). I like NoScript especially because it does this automatically, without the need for a huge whitelist/blacklist.

Seriously, if Opera builds-in something like this, I'm sold, since it's really the only plug-in I use in Firefox (besides Firebug, but that's for development and not for browsing :P).

Re:Opera Mozilla (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569483)

Are you sure you're aware of Opera's full feature set?

Opera has both per-site Noscript and Noscript by default, it's up to you.

Right-click on a website, pick "Edit site preferences..." and uncheck "Enable Javascript" for the domain if you want. Or disable Javascript for the entire application, and check Enable Javascript for the sites you wish.

As for blocking ads, right-click on the site with ads and pick "Block content..." -- wildcards are supported. The only thing I miss there is a subscription like that in Adblock, but after having blocked the most common sites, I don't get ads nearly as much anymore.

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569633)

Is there an easy to use interface for managing what domains I have JavaScript blocked from? Or do you have to go to each site every time to manage?

And say I somehow go to doubleclick.net and disable JavaScript for that domain, does it only work when I actually navigate to that site, or does it work as well on sites like Slashdot when it has scripts brought in _from_ doubleclick.net?

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571153)

Per your first question, the best you can do AFAIK is go Tools->Preferences->Content->Manage Site Preferences. That will give you a list of all the sites that you have set preferences for. You can edit, add, or remove sites from the list. So if you enter "google.com" as a new one you can edit all the settings there without visiting the site.

Your second question is an interesting one, but I don't know the answer. I use a userjs file to handle blocking javascripts I don't want it to load. It blocks everything by default and when I tell it to allow something it remembers to allow it in the future. It remembers by setting a cookie though which is a crappy way to do it IMO.

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570459)

Does it allow fine grained per-script control? For example, it is common for java script files related to advertising domains to be linked separately into pages served from different top level domains. Noscript allows exclusions or inclusions for scripts loaded from a particular domain to be applied (doubleclick for example) no matter what site is attempting to load the scripts. No script also offers xss and cross site scripting sanitization. Personally, I like the addon concept employed by Firefox much more than the "one size fits all" approach of Internet Explorer and other browsers (yes, yes, I know about plugins, but Firefox has the greatest number of quality and interesting addons of any browser that I know of, there really is something for everyone). The addon concept allows core browser functionality to be concentrated on to the exclusion of extraneous features and enforces a more formal separation of concerns between core browser functions and functions provided by addons. IMHO, the addon approach is simply a superior design.

Re:Opera Mozilla (2, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569489)

I don't see adds either.

Download the url filter:
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz]

and also get the CSS "element hide" file.

It's not AdBlock, but I don't see advertisements anymore. 5 minutes is a small price to pay :-)

Re:Opera Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569503)

what are you talking about? i havent seen ads in opera for years....

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569741)

However, the lack of an easy-to-use extension system (and the presence of ads -- ads? I had forgotten the web had ads!) keep bringing me back to Firefox.

That is AFAIC the biggest downside to Opera. OTOH, there are plenty of tools to remove ads without using an extension. http://www.admuncher.com/ [admuncher.com] is what I've been using for years, even with Firefox (performs better than AdBlock IMHO).

Re:Opera Mozilla (2, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570629)

I really don't understand the rabid hatred of seeing ANY ads that some people have. I'll block flash ads or ads with animation if they get too distracting, but usually I just don't see them.

Re:Opera Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569887)

I used Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Phoenix/Firefox for 9 years.

You forgot Firebird [mozillazine.org] .

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570415)

Advertisement banner? Why are you still using Opera 8? :P

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570543)

The advertising banner was annoying, but I had no problem paying the modest fee the asked for to remove it.

It's really just better at doing things the way I want them done than Firefox is (without hunting around for the proper extensions)

Re:Opera Mozilla (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571375)

Seriously? Look, I understand the love for Opera (great browser), but it was seriously easier for you to bring out the wallet then it was to search for a few free extensions? :\

Web developers care, normal people don't (3, Insightful)

agentultra (1090039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569019)

There has been choice for years that many people have been aware of.

Most people who still use IE just don't care for the other choices.

Web developers care more than anyone. People who only go on the Internet to watch the odd youtube video and check their hotmail care the least.

Re:Web developers care, normal people don't (3, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569385)

You'd be surprised. I work for a fairly large company (several thousand employees). People at the head office have control on their machines. A large portion of them (many who barely know how to turn on their computer) downloaded and use Firefox, and many even Chrome!

But for the people in the outlets... their computers are locked down (very...locked down. For good reasons: if it breaks, someone needs to take a trip from the headoffice, thats time consuming and expensive), old, and purely controlled by the network administrators. Pushing IE is easy, though there are some machines on Win2k out there, so IE7 and above are no go. Pushing Firefox or others would be more difficult, for little gain (from a business perspective), even if users want it.

The consequence in the end is: I have to make our -internal- apps work in IE6/7, and only those. Not a good thing.

Re:Web developers care, normal people don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570355)

Tell your boss that it would be more cost effective to push Firefox to the outlets instead of spending hours of company time making sure the tiniest change to the code doesn't break on IE6.

Of course there is a gain from pushing Firefox to your outlets, if you code any internal webapps at all.

Re:Web developers care, normal people don't (3, Insightful)

biscuitlover (1306893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569585)

There's an element of truth in that, but you can't underestimate the power of Chinese whispers... With IE6 and IE7 Microsoft caused so much resentment amongst web developers (or the ones who built pages properly at any rate) that lots of people began some kind of crusade to get everyone they knew using a different browser.

As a web developer I've ended up doing the same. So, while the percentage of internet users who are also web developers might be pretty minimal, IE's broken standards created so many evangelists for the alternatives that the ripples have started to reach pretty far and wide...

..Or am I just being wildly optimistic?

anything-but-IE = better open standards support !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25569109)

Just one example:
http://codedread.com/svg-support.php

IMO (2, Informative)

EncryptedSoldier (1278816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25569451)

My browser of choice is Firefox. I have it setup just exactly the way I like it, and some of the tweaks are not available in Opera. If they were, I would use Opera. The other browsers I use/have tried other than FF and Opera are: Chrome, IE8 Beta, and Safari. I can say I loath IE8 and Safari, and Chrome has a lot of useless features that are sometimes annoying. Google has a lot of work to do if they even bother. Opera is fast, and feature rich, and has a very modern feel. Firefox is Firefox, I don't think I need to explain that to anybody on Slashdot.

Re:IMO (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570905)

I can understand why you prefer Firefox--it's got a lot more development history and third-party support in terms being an alternative to Internet Explorer compared to its competition (Opera doesn't have the third party support that Firefox enjoys now).

But don't dismiss Chrome just yet--Google can easily throw a lot of resources at it to quickly develop the browser and offer a lot of enticements for third-party support (they have the liquid assets to do this). I've been playing around with the current public beta release and it's actually pretty stable for the most part, with only a few few pages that won't load correctly.

Re:IMO (1)

EncryptedSoldier (1278816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571117)

You are correct, however, in Google's quest to take over the world, it the browser market really important for them? Don't forget many of Google's projects are funded by advertising.

FP SHIT!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25570077)

goodbye...5he had would like to and shower. For some of you have lizard - In other

who cares (1)

kingsteve612 (1241114) | more than 5 years ago | (#25570397)

too many browsers. update the ones that are already our there instead of spending money on a bunch of new ones.

IE will remain on top as long as Windows is top (3, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571143)

>>>all those people that don't realize there's an alternative in the market.

Yeah. So? Even when Netscape had 90% dominance, most people still chose Internet Exploder, thereby gradually erasing Netscape from existence. I don't think any browser's ever going to beat IE's advantage of being "there" on the desktop.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?