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!

Firefox In Print

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the no,-not-the-nyt-ad dept.

Mozilla 360

hoovernj writes "It seems that O'Reilly is ready to release two books about Firefox in March. The first is Firefox Hacks, which will be targeted at Firefox power users. And the second is Don't Click on the Blue E!, which will be targeted at less-savvy users transitioning from Internet Explorer. Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages? (thanks to mozillaZine for the original pointer)." And reader ledmirage writes "Wired Magazine's February issue on Firefox: 'It's fast, secure, open source - and super popular. The hot new browser called Firefox is rocking the software world. (Watch your back, Bill Gates.)'."

cancel ×

360 comments

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

What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (4, Interesting)

thegoogler (792786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492066)

Besides defining what all the value(including the user addable ones) at about:config do.. what much else is there to tell? Editing the source? I doubt the book goes into that...

Perhaps (1)

paranode (671698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492084)

That one popular yet dubious trick of telling your browser to hit websites you point to 20 or so times at once to get a faster response...

Re:Perhaps (1)

gremlins (588904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492248)

Yeah I know, I hope the book doesn't have these in it, there are alot of hacks for firefox that makes it faster but they also are irresponsible because they put undo strain on websites.

Re:Perhaps (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492291)

irresponsible because they put undo strain on websites.

But that's only if a majority of people use the speed enhancements, right?

Re:Perhaps (2, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492370)

But that's only if a majority of people use the speed enhancements, right?

Well, what do you expect to happen if this trick is published and widely distributed?

Re:Perhaps (4, Informative)

virtual_mps (62997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492287)

Hmm. The popular trick I'm familiar with is to enable pipelining--which lets you submit multiple requests in a single tcp session; this is not the same as increasing the maximum number of simultaneous requests, although the FUDdites like to run around claiming that it is. It's not enabled by default because some lousy web servers can't handle pipelining.

Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (3, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492122)

Firefox has a boatload of extensions and plugins. I could easily see a book talking about the ways to use all the extensions (and which ones are best).

Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (2, Informative)

stridebird (594984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492162)

From the amazon full description...

"You'll even learn how to install, use, and alter extensions and plug-ins"

So plenty of reasons why you'll be needing this book, then...hmmm.

More control over EXE Files? Search Pluggins? Etc? (3, Interesting)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492224)

Besides defining what all the value(including the user addable ones) at about:config do.. what much else is there to tell? Editing the source? I doubt the book goes into that...

Perhaps he could editting some of the JavaScript files FireFox uses.

You need to do this if you want to be able to Remove the Kiddie Gloves [osdir.com] and let Firefox allow you to run EXE files you've downloaded out of the browser cache--with a warning of course--so that they are deleted automatically, rather than saving them to a specific folder where you'd have to delete them later.

This is great for things like drivers that you'd install once, but if you needed to install later you'd have to go back for the most updated version anyway, so there's little reason to save offline and since there's still 2 levels of warnings that appear on WinXP SP2 (or 1 level of warning on WinXP SP1), you really haven't decreased security at all.

I'm sure there's lots of other stuff you can do in other script files firefox uses for config.

He could also cover making search plugins... those are relatively simple, but can be confusing for first timmers and are kinda finicky for some websites search setups (the "official" Amazon plugin add's plusses where spaces should be, something that doesn't happen when searching on amazon directly...

Re:More control over EXE Files? Search Pluggins? E (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492296)

You need to do this if you want to be able to Remove the Kiddie Gloves and let Firefox allow you to run EXE files you've downloaded out of the browser cache--with a warning of course--so that they are deleted automatically, rather than saving them to a specific folder where you'd have to delete them later.


Isn't this the sort of thing people switch to Firefox to AVOID? Warning or no, most people click past those without reading them.

Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492242)

ever looked at about:config?

Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (0, Redundant)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492350)

Chapter 1: Using Ctrl + and Ctrl - to Fix Slashdot

Re:What could firefox hacks possibly cover? (1)

!splut (512711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492357)

No no - This is the novelization. It tells how the scrappy underdog, Firefox, through street smarts and perserverence overcomes great odds and topples the evil giant, IE.

Dreamworks has picked up the film rights. Will Smith is slated to star.

Another nail... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492067)

Another nail in the coffin. Maybe MS will actually do an overhaul after this.

Re:Another nail... (4, Funny)

RobertTaylor (444958) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492080)

*another* nail?

How bloody big is this coffin?!

Re:Another nail... (1)

n00i3 (837196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492178)

from all the helpdesk calls thAt I get, I'd say fucking enormous!

Firefox book (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492073)

FTP!!!

Re:Firefox book (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492197)

Doddamned, if Firefox would not be so slow, I would have made the fristy psot.

What is FF written in that makes it so slow; Java?

Necessary? (4, Interesting)

troon (724114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492074)

Does anyone *really* need a book telling them how to use a browser? Doesn't that suggest that the browser UI design is inadequate?

Re:Necessary? (3, Insightful)

freshman_a (136603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492117)

If someone is converting from IE, I would think they'd be a little unfamiliar with things like tabbed browsing, extensions, themes, and pretty much anything FF has that IE doesn't.

Re:Necessary? (1)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492121)

I've seen books on Internet Explorer, why wouldn't there be a book for Firefox? Actually, I'm sure there are a lot of new users (youngsters or older people, new to computers) that would benefit from it.

Re:Necessary? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492184)

Some people are very closed minded, and/or afraid to even go to the menus. I am sure the book covers more then the forward, back, refresh, stop, home, and location bar. Which most people use 95% of the time. But the little things like managing bookmark,configuring the options adding, theams, extentions, understaning RSS. Explaining why Active-X is bad. Most people when given a piece of software they don't at all the options they have they only go there when they need to. Heck I know many people who think clicking the start button is considered an advanced feature in windows. If it isn't on their desktop then it isn't worth clicking on.

Re:Necessary? (1)

greechneb (574646) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492363)

If the people aren't going to go into the menus, I doubt that they are going to read a book about how to go into the menus and beyond.

Re:Necessary? (1)

damian cosmas (853143) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492199)

In short, yes. If people "knew" how to use MSIE in the first place, they wouldn't be needing to switch, since they wouldn't have all the computer problems that are likely the reason that they're switching in the first place.

Besides, some people RTFM and not everyone started out with Netscape 1.0 then learned subsequent features as they were added.

Re:Necessary? (3, Insightful)

Gargamell (716347) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492328)

i do not know if anyone *really* needs it.

I know plenty of people that might benefit from an IE book, so i see no reason why a FF wouldn't be helpful.

My main point for resonding however, is that O'Reilly is obviously a very important point of tech media - AKA - marketing! Just a book being created about FF gives it a lot of "populace" credit. It is almost like a marketing milestone. This is a huge benefit to the idea in general, just like all the New York Times articles on FF we have been seen.

I am sure we will see an "Idiots guide to FF" soon enough!

~tim

Re:Necessary? (3, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492369)

Yes. [amazon.com]

22% of which market (3, Interesting)

InfoHighwayRoadkill (454730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492077)

in the FA O'reilly claim firefox accounts of 22% of the market... I just whish this were so.

Re:22% of which market (2, Informative)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492104)

Re:22% of which market (1)

freshman_a (136603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492157)

Re:22% of which market (3, Informative)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492225)

Not that far off. 19.2% and if I recall w3schools only recently started marking the difference between FF and Mozilla (which would bring it up to 23% if it was watching the two as one).

Re:22% of which market (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492272)

And from the same page;

Statistics Are Often Misleading
You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.

Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, other sites attract hobbyists using older low spec computers.

Also be aware that many stats may have an incomplete or faulty browser detection. It is quite common by many web stats report programs, not to detect new browsers like Opera and Netscape 6 or 7 from the web log.

(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures)

Re:22% of which market (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492377)

While we wait for the data, the anecdotes are exhilarating:

My coworker's father-in-law now swears by Firefox. He's an elite sales executive in the automobile industry, not a geek at all.

With Firefox building mindshare among people like him, the numbers can't be far behind.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492083)

by me!

Lazy IE Only Scripted Webpages... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492087)

What's wrong with a browser perfoming some interpretation of shitty HTML? The average person writing HTML has no idea how to properly develop it, and this includes people who do this for a living!

I *want* my browser to fudge things a bit so they look right.

As a caveat, I use Firecrap for its stability at the moment, but I wish I had a browser that parsed HTML like IE does and functions like Firefox. It's a stupid browser, it's not that hard to write, people! Tempted to go back to freakin' Lynx...

Re:Lazy IE Only Scripted Webpages... (1)

NaCl (414038) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492168)

Don't blame the messenger.

Re:Lazy IE Only Scripted Webpages... (3, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492233)

If everyone's sites were compliant with standards then a browser would be simple and there would be no need to fudge anything.

IE fudges sites and this hides errors, I want to see errors in pages I develop, then I can fix them.

Re:Lazy IE Only Scripted Webpages... (4, Insightful)

ptaff (165113) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492276)

Biting the troll.

You got it right: interpretation. Like if I told you "John says to Paul that he is fat". Who is fat? MSIE says it's John, Firefox says it's Paul, Opera says it's both, Safari says neither.

The last thing you want from any language is random behavior. That's what you get from tag soup. You get no point from saying that the average person writing HTML has no clue so browsers must cope with that; it's because early browsers allowed tag soup that we're caught with it now. If malformed HTML were not possible then, people would've learned the proper syntax, like they do in each and every other programming language.

We are now in a position where we can (and must) break the circle, using XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, which will fail (just like a C compiler would fail on a missing semicolon) on bad-formedness. This will allow for a flawless integration of new XML modules (MathML, SVG, XForms, RDF, ...), simpler parsers and make the web evolve.

Feel ready to own one or many Tux Stickers [ptaff.ca] ?

Re:Lazy IE Only Scripted Webpages... (4, Insightful)

guet (525509) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492391)

I *want* my browser to fudge things a bit so they look right.
As a caveat, I use Firecrap for its stability at the moment, but I wish I had a browser that parsed HTML like IE does and functions like Firefox. It's a stupid browser, it's not that hard to write, people! Tempted to go back to freakin' Lynx...


If it's so simple to write a 'stupid browser', try writing it yourself, should only take a few weeks, right? It will be easy to interpret the intentions of someone halfway through the world obscured by whatever tool they used to make the pages, right? It will be easy to be bug for bug compatible with a closed source program, right? I mean, figuring out what to do if they forgot to close a deeply nested table or missed out an angle bracket, that will be *easy* to work out won't it?

Let me know when you get it finished, not that I'd want to use it, because it'd be fundamentally broken, and I'd never know if my web pages were correct when testing on it.

The reason you don't notice the interpretation IE has of web-pages is that most people check on that - if it doesn't look right, they go back and fix it. Most people even work round any well-known bugs in their box-model etc, because they know that's what most of their clients will look at it on.

So the IE team doesn't have to do anything, apart from be careful not to change too much : ). If you had your way no bugs would be fixed because 'they broke my pages' even though it's your pages that are broken, and fixing the bug caused them to look wrong.

Don't click on Blue E? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492096)

I am Daltonist, you insensitive clod!

Thats it.... (5, Funny)

pploco (694950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492098)

I'm giving up Lynx.

Re:Thats it.... (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492250)

One should never give up Lynx. Espectially Web Developers, if you can make a page look good in Lynx, and in a graphical browser then you really did you job well. Including aiding the visually impared. There are some sites that I think should always be lynx ready. Like X.org and XFree86 website. because if you can't get X to work you are searching for drivers and/or direction on these sites in lynx.

Be careful (2, Informative)

tessonec (620168) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492336)

suddenly, you may be in troubles... [boingboing.net]

Re:Thats it.... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492356)

good timing [boingboing.net]

lets hope (1)

suezz (804747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492108)

lets hope its the end of ie only sites. uhh lets make a web site but only make it for one browser. it is much better than the client/server software we currently use.

Revenge of the Lizzard (1)

KaMiKa-Z77 (610817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492109)

From the Wired article...
"He didn't know that the browser [Firefox] was an open source project and a descendant of Netscape Navigator now poised to avenge Netscape's defeat at the hands of Microsoft."

Oh Great, Wired's going to kill it (5, Funny)

happyDave (155169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492115)

The Wired kiss-of-death will strike again. They can't tout a "next big thing" without absolutely killing it.

Re:Oh Great, Wired's going to kill it (3, Funny)

ader (1402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492148)

That Wired quote should have come from the Life-imitates-Springfield dept. It had Kent Brockman all over it.

Ade_
/

Good things (2)

springbox (853816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492135)

Having a published book on the subject could push more people to use it over IE, which would always be a good thing. I absolutely hate the fact that IE is so uncompliant with standards. If everyone started to use a standards compliant browser my life would be easier.

Also, I find the title "don't click the blue E" particularly funny. I know someone who, when asked, why they didn't like Firefox over IE they said "because it's harder to use" or some BS like that. He's a technician and apparently just wubs IE to death for some reason even though he admits to having to configure every installation to the maximum security settings. Oh well.

Is this really necessary? (1, Insightful)

jdogs60 (575605) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492136)

Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?

Is anyone else getting tired of every news story possibly being the end of something? This summary would have been perfectly informative without that wonderful bit of speculation.

And no, I'm not new here.

Is this really necessary?-Fin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492194)

"Is anyone else getting tired of every news story possibly being the end of something?"

Well maybe with your post? That'll be the end of that practice.

In Soviet Korea.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492214)

Only news stories get tired of old posters.

Don't Click on the Blue E!, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492138)

Strewth, if succesful transitioning to Firefox requires me to fork out $20 for a book, I might as well spend my money on a more straightforward browser [opera.com] .

Firefox rocked my world! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492147)

Seriously, exaxctly how often IS the software world rocked nowadays? Every week or so? Don't get me wrong, I love firefox but is it really having a huge impact on the software industry? After all, both firefox and IE are free (though you have to buy windows to get IE). At the most it is taking a chunk out of MS's browser market, but that's all.

P.S. Watch your back bill gates? WTF is this 1996 or something "homey"?

Re:Firefox rocked my world! (1)

NaCl (414038) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492236)

I love firefox but is it really having a huge impact on the software industry?

Actually, it is. It shows that it's possible to beat a big corporation with questionable market practices with open source software.

Re:Firefox rocked my world! (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492329)

Not only that, if Firefox gets to a certain percentage (I'd guess 10-15%), then sites can't ignore that.

The separation of client from server is valuable to the world. It creates truly open competition.

Re:Firefox rocked my world! (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492386)

I agree, even if just from an end-user standpoint. I have to use IE on some computers I work on and I absolutely hate it. Just the fact that tabbed browsing is missing is horrible (although it may appear in IE in later versions) ... among other things. I put FF on a machine at a place I was working a while back and my coworkers were amazed at what I was using. They asked about it, I told them where to find it, and they come back thanking me for telling them about such a great browser.

Fast?? (1, Flamebait)

sosume (680416) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492158)

It's fast, secure, open source - and super popular

Well for one thing Firefox is NOT fast. Its slow as h#ll especially when starting up.. mucha slower than IE6 IME.

Re:Fast?? (1)

ticktockticktock (772894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492222)

How often do you reload firefox?

Re:Fast?? (1)

Brando_Calrisean (755640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492237)

Think it has anything to do with it being tied into the OS?

Re:Fast?? (1)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492266)

There are a number of factors that can cause it to be slow to start. - Do you have check for updates clicked on? - Do you have extension check for updates on? - What internet connection do you have? - How many extensions do you have installed? - Of those extensions how many require to pull information from the network? That is just off the top of my head. There are probably other ways to enhance it, maybe in the book they are touting? Personally I find Firefox very fast compared to IE (I have pretty much all but stopped using IE anyway). It also renders faster.

Duh... (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492271)

That's cos IE is auto-loaded during your machine's startup. You are still waiting for it to load, you just don't know it.

That isn't to say that there's no improvement to be done on FF or anything else, my Linux boxen are too slow (ob: which I rarely do) becuase I want them to come up like a cd player: Click! Ready!

Justin.

Did I miss something? (4, Insightful)

gremlins (588904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492159)

Not that I don't agree with the idea the firefox is taking a chuck out of IE's market share but how exactly does O'Reilly releasing 2 books on firefox equal a "end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages"?

Am I the only only old fart feeling deja vu? (3, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492164)

Am I the only old fart feeling deja vu? Open source...fast...not Microsoft...lemme see, that's the Mosaic browser before it became Netscape, right?

Now what do I do with the "winsock.dll" file again?

Re:Am I the only only old fart feeling deja vu? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492283)

Microsoft actually used Mosaic for IE.

Re:Am I the only only old fart feeling deja vu? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492390)

IE 1.0...you're right. The code forked pretty quickly after that. See:
http://www.free-scripts.net/html_tutorial/history/ ie.htm [free-scripts.net]

(Also, here's an old browser timeline:
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browsers .htm [blooberry.com] )

Less savvy users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492169)

What kind of less savvy users would buy a book about Firefox?

Possible Title??? (2, Funny)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492171)

The O'Reilly FireFox Factor

A small point (3, Insightful)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492172)

I read the wired article, and in all fairness the IE bashing was based on IE pre-SP2. A lot of it's been tightened up. A little balance, please.

Re:A small point (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492226)

Post-SP2 IE still sucks... still no tabbed browsing, still has ActiveX, still has security flaws, still doesn't support any standard post-1998.

Slashdot (5, Informative)

zoeblade (600058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492179)

Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?

Slashdot is not the place to ask. Their site constantly displays incorrectly in Firefox. They'd do well to take heed of their own articles [slashdot.org] .

MOD PARENT UP!!! (0)

Saltine Cracker (116414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492306)

I concur! I find it so ironic that Firefox is so proudly displayed as the Browser to use here on slashdot, and yet for whatever reason Taco can't seem to write slashdot such that it will display correctly in Firefox.

Re:Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492348)

Am I the only person for whom slashdot renders properly in Firefox without any intervention on my part? I haven't had a problem since 0.7.

Star Trek Ref (2, Funny)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492191)

All I can think of is the scene where Uhura is re-learning English and trying to pronounce "blue" on her own:

Buh -- Luu -- Eee

Blue E?

Re:Star Trek Ref (5, Funny)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492245)

The geek is strong in this one.

Watch your back? (1)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492193)

How much money does Microsoft really make off of Internet Explorer? If the Mozilla Foundation snatches the browser market away, does Bill Gates give a damn? The home user still gets to use IE for Windows Update (and Office Update), unless she expressly use Automatic Updates. Now, if Slackware were getting 20% of the OS market, Bill Gates would need rear-view mirrors. But the browser thing is last decade's battle.

Unless we can use it as a foothold, and move on to combat the Windows monopoly.

Totally false.. (2, Interesting)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492312)

With Microsoft releasing .NET in the way that they are, the browser is an ESSENTIAL tool in their arsenal to have. And IE market share only furthers the use of .NET in a corporate setting, and that prolongs the life of Microsoft being used with the dominance they have been. .NET is easy to develop, works in a web browser (so users don't have to install software), and is cross OS compliant (since it's thru a browser).

The unfortunate part for Microsoft is, if they lose the browser war or at least, let another competitor have CREDENCE in the marketplace, they too will be forced to update the .NET framework to support those existances because the environment demands it.

However much I LOVE Firefox... I don't see Microsoft sitting down and taking a beating. They do have talented engineers there... they just need to focus their bearings, get what people asked for INTO IE, and then play the catchup game of security against Firefox. It's going to be a long hard road for both browsers, but to say the fight is irrelevant is missing the whole point of web-enabled technologies. Good thing that so many corporate enterprises are investing into Firefox :) Amazon, Google, and now O'Reilly... they may not be giving money to Mozilla, but they are doing the advertising for free... and that's a great step forward.

Re:Totally false.. (1)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492364)

Don't forget the ISP Speakeasy (there was a slashdot article on it yesterday).

All we need now is a huge name OEM preloading FireFox onto computers and setting it as the default browser.

They're overhyping a bit, aren't they? (2, Interesting)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492201)

I'm using Firefox at the moment, but it's not the utopic experience they seem to be pushing. It gets very slow sometimes for no discernable reason. The automatic plug-in download hasn't worked once. And sometimes the text on Slashdot pages shows up shifted way over to the right completely at random. It also chokes on my company's online timecard page, and looking at the page code I don't see anything particularly unusual or esoteric. I'll keep using it, though. It *is* better than IE overall.

I'd like to see them put the tab close "X" on the tabs themselves like Safari.

Re:They're overhyping a bit, aren't they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492342)

for a tab closing X on each tab, check out Tabbrower Extensions http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/tabextensions/index.h tml.en [sakura.ne.jp] It works well for me

Re:They're overhyping a bit, aren't they? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492397)

> I'd like to see them put the tab close "X" on the tabs themselves like Safari.

Just get the TabX [mozdev.org] extension and they'll be on the right place. It's the only extension I really need, actually.

In defense of... (5, Interesting)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492202)

I just had this conversation with my business partner the other day (we're in web development). I was thinking about it from this standpoint - even Firefox doesn't get everything completely right 100% of the time. Those problems tend to get fixed pretty quick, luckily.

If you've ever tried to read through the W3C recommendations, you'll find them pretty dry and occasionally confusing. You can understand how browsers don't conform completely all the time.

That doesn't excuse Microsoft from developing a way-off-base browser, allowing serious security holes past testing, or refusing to fix the problems they are aware of... There are a few things I like about IE, including some treatments of CSS and JavaScript. Just today I had to implement an auto-progressing slideshow feature into a photo gallery, and IE lets me use blend transitions (Firefox doesn't, at least that I can find).

Despite all the defenses I can imagine, we still develop for Firefox and adjust to make it work in IE. We're both Firefox users that have to keep IE in our arsenal because that's what EVERY SINGLE CLIENT USES. None of them care to switch...and some can't because of the corporate requirements.

Re:In defense of... (5, Interesting)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492304)

We've started not working around every little IE glitch. For example, we brought in wonderful new icons in PNG format, then realised IE kinda made a mess out of them. In the end, we left it, as:

1. They were still _usable_ under IE.
2. It's blatantly an IE bug, so if the users complain, we can tell that Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/Safari/Konqueror render them fine, must be their browser.

We're also lucky to have a userbase that likes Firefox (we're at about 40% of hits coming from Firefox, currently)...

Blending (1)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492331)

So you missed the CSS "opacity" item? IE uses some damm non-standardard "filtering" metod of addind simple opacity. Earlier versions of gecko and khtml use slight variations ( MozOpacity and KhtmlOpacity respectivly ).

Re:In defense of... (1)

TiggsPanther (611974) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492337)

Despite all the defenses I can imagine, we still develop for Firefox and adjust to make it work in IE. We're both Firefox users that have to keep IE in our arsenal because that's what EVERY SINGLE CLIENT USES.

And that's an attitude we can only hope spreads to more website developers as time goes on. You code for one, but adjust to make sure it works in the other. In my mind it doesn't matter which is first and which is second, more that the end result is a site that probably works pretty well in either browser. (And probably others too)
Sadly too many developers simply write sites for one browser (usually IE) and don't even spare a thought for users of alternatives.

My fox is on fire! My fox is on fire! (1)

Laurentiu (830504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492205)

The only reasons for such books to exist is to:
1. Catch the eye of literate, albeit beginning computer users (aka clueless) who make a point of reading the titles of all the new IT-related books in their local library.
2. Give the sysadmins a powerful tool for turning around corporate policy: "But, boss, it's in O'Reilly! They're the alpha and omega of CS!" "OK, stop bugging me and install the damn thing, but if my Favourites are not there tomorrow, don't bother showing up again."

Why I still use IE... (2, Interesting)

jaiyen (821972) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492213)

Much though I'd like to use Firefox all the time, I often seem to find myself having to resort back to IE. This is partly due to online banking requirements etc, but also due to a surprisingly large (IMO) number of sites that don't fully function in Firefox particulary those involving DHTML menus. See, say, this site [bumrungrad.com] for an example where the DHTML left hand menu appears in IE but not Firefox (version 1.0 on XP, at least).

Now I'm sure someone will check the source and blame it on badly written javascript, but all the same if it works in IE and not in Firefox then I think the public at large is likely to perceive that as Firefox flaw.

What can be done to improve this ? I'd love to make the final break with IE but at the moment just end up having to resort to using it more often than I'd like. Perhaps this situation will improve as Firefox gains market share - I can but hope.

To answer your question... (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492221)

Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?

No.

Why? Because for many, people are comfortable with the norm and when you start changing things, there is a chance you can make it worse, and rather than risk things getting worse, you stay where you are. You keep doing what you have been doing and do not change.

For many, the blue E is the internet, not a browser and with such ingraining far too many books would have to be printed and given away (along with large cash bribes to encourage people to read them).

Last year a friend of my fathers was helping me out with a car, he was complaining about all of the popups and other crap on his computer, I offered to look at it for him, but he turned me down. Why? See the above reasons.

In Business Week (1)

tabdelgawad (590061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492232)

The January 24th print edition of Business Week had a two-pager, advertised on the cover, about Firefox and the threat it poses to Microsoft. I actually doubt there's a mainstream publication out there that *hasn't* done a feature on Firefox.

I predict 10-15% market share by mid-year :)

In other news... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492244)

Bill Gates files charges against Firefox's Blake Ross and Ben Goodger for allegedly making threats against Mr. Gates' life.

The two deny all charges, and intend to plea not guilty if the case goes to trial, however a report from a recent "Wired" magazine article [wired.com] alleges that Mr. Gates should 'Watch his back'

In completely unreleated news, Microsoft has filed to pattent the phrase "Watch your back", and will be suing the Firefox developers as well as Wired magazine for royalties and copyright infringement.

Watch out? (1)

SilentReproach (91511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492263)

watch your back, Bill Gates

He might care if IE actually generated direct revenue. Firefox does nothing to change his revenue stream: Windows and Office.

I'm by far not a pro-web developer... (1)

NivenHuH (579871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492264)

"Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?"

What's the authoritative source for making sure you have a 'browser friendly' page up? I've always used W3C to ensure my code is valid, but I run into problems with my page rendering differently on each browser.. =/ Is this because each browser interprets the standard differently?

Re:I'm by far not a pro-web developer... (1)

abh (22332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492371)

Is this because each browser interprets the standard differently?

...and some choose not to implement standards at all, and some choose to make up their own way of doing things. Most of the sites that are tweaked for IE are done so because IE does a lot of things in its own way. If every browser followed standards, this would be a non-issue.

The end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11492277)

Please OP, explain to me why this "could be the end".

It's sad that as much as all of you people trash Microsoft for giving out MS propoganda, you do the same exact thing for your side.

How can 'Don't Click...' be worth 20 bucks? (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492301)

I mean, really, once you've read the title, you're most of the way there..!

Except that most people will need to click on the blue E to go to getfirefox to, err, get firefox. Maybe the 20 bucks is for explaining how to install BitTorrent ;-)

Justin.

why i still use opera (2, Interesting)

eggfellow (415474) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492317)

there are two features of opera that i haven't found in firefox that keep me on opera. if someone knows how they can be done in firefox, i'd be grateful to hear about it

1) opera by default opens all new windows in new tabs. firefox still responds to hyperlinks etc that want to bring up new windows with, er, a new window. i want tabs to be the default

2) if pc/windows/opera crashes, i can come back into it pretty much exactly where i left off - all my tabs are there with their histories intact

Condensed version? (1)

Shadow2097 (561710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492333)

I've been slowly switching over everyone I can. If someone asks me to fix their virus-and-spyware laden XP machine, I tell them I'm only going to do it if they'll switch to a safer web browser and learn how to run Ad-Aware. At first they're kind of reluctant, but after two or three times of me having to fix their computer (at my leisure) they're usually pretty open to new ideas.

So that book on why Firefox is better than IE sounds terrific, but at 152 pages isn't exactly what I'd call light reading. Does anyone know of any shorter dead-tree books or pamphlets that condense everything down into some nice sound-byte type facts?

-Shadow

Marketing can't slow down (1)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492335)

This is all great, but it's still important to use spreadfirefox and market [spreadfirefox.com]

Get a few images, and sprinkle them on your websites, etc.

People trust geeks and their opinions. So if all the geeks unite and say to use Firefox, there's a good chance they will.

The books are great, but it's not a time to slow down on the linking.

We need to make casual surfers think "wow, I'm out of touch, everyone talks about firefox... from books to blogs".

So spread [spreadfirefox.com] firefox now!

What's next? (1)

Zaulden (848844) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492353)

What's next? A book on how to wipe yourself after going to the bathroom?

This just in... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492394)

...IE is dying, film at eleven.

why print? (1)

Keruo (771880) | more than 9 years ago | (#11492404)

why print stuff like this in the first place?

sure, book is nice to handle and to read, but most of the contents handle stuff that requires you to operate computer while reading if you want to get most out of it

now wait 5 years and all second hand bookstores are filled with these books and nobody wants them, because firefox 2.0 or 3.0 or some other better browser already made it obsolete technology

I guess my point here being, save a tree, save some shelf space, save as pdf instead
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>