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!

Yahoo Pledges Full Firefox Support

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the you-have-to-love-the-fox dept.

Mozilla 239

homerj79 writes "News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site. Despite its search bar for Firefox, which was launched in February, users still had to revert back to IE for certain features of Yahoo, like customizing your Yahoo Messenger avatar via the web. A specific date has not been set, but the company did say it would not launch any new services until all existing one supported Firefox." Update: 03/18 18:24 GMT by Z : GraffitiKnight (among many others) wrote in to mention that the claim has been retracted by the Yahoo! central office.

cancel ×

239 comments

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

fp (-1, Offtopic)

ek-1000-ek (701465) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976295)

fp

Re:fp (0, Offtopic)

soapdog (773638) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976331)

man, I remember in the-good-old-days when first post trolls used to write at least a complete sentence like "Geee All Your First p0st are belong to us".... fp... ick... damn

MODS Listen Up! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976374)

I was just reading the FAQ on moderation, and I came across something that would make a good screenshot:

Take a comment (Troll, Flamebait, Offtopic) and then label it underrated several times to get +5 Troll, Flamebait, Offtopic.

I just think that could be a pretty good sight to see, and might make for a good chuckle.

Re:MODS Listen Up! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976741)

no just...no

Fuckers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976300)

Beyotch!

Support from an unlikely source? (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976302)

(Heard Wednesday at SDWest) Even ASP.NET 2.0/VS 2005 will have (better) support for Firefox. It sure perked up my ears. What's their plan?

Re:Support from an unlikely source? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976363)

ASP.NET's html generation profile is based on an old version of Netscape where things like border-collapse didn't work. It's pretty straightforward to update this for FireFox.

Apparently one main goal of ASP.NET2 is XHTML support, which is good for everyone, except IE6 users. Until IE7 ships, Firefox may be the best environment for ASP.NET users.

Like Intel pulling an AMD? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976510)

Apparently one main goal of ASP.NET2 is XHTML support, which is good for everyone, except IE6 users. Until IE7 ships, Firefox may be the best environment for ASP.NET users.

Wouldn't it be a h00t if Microsoft came out with IE 7.0 and said it was Firefox compatible ...

"our thingie is just like their thingie and is better in the Dubious Advantage Benchmark!"

Re:Support from an unlikely source? (1)

Cooler1011 (829888) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976389)

So what? I pledged full support for Firefox months ago.

aaarrgh ... quality of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976546)

>customizing your Yahoo Messenger avatar

How did we ever survive without life critical necessities like messenger avatars and smileys?

This is what is wrong with the web and web based applications.

They should provide functionality without arbitrary wysiwyg interfaces.

Re:aaarrgh ... quality of life (4, Funny)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976709)

Yeah, way to go.

Let's go back to Lynx.

Nah, let's go back to Gopher!

Or let's just ditch the Internet, and bring back the BBS! :)

Re:Support from an unlikely source? (1)

sp3tt (856121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976586)

95) Implement better support for Firefox 98) ???????? XP) PROFIT!

So Yahoo Supports Standards (5, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976312)

So Yahoo now supports standards.

Wow! News at 11.

Re:So Yahoo Supports Standards (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976349)

So Yahoo now supports standards.

...well they used to support Suffering Based Advertising (X10 Pop-Ups)

#$*&! i DON'T want yer #&^$*(@ camera, shove it up your $&^$#*

Re:So Yahoo Supports Standards (3, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976783)

No, they support 2 browsers. They never claimed they were going to make their pages work on both of them by supporting actual standards; more likely they'll just use a bunch of ugly hacks so things work right on those 2 but may or may not horribly break under Safari or Opera.

If content providers and browser makers would have all supported standards in the first place, they wouldn't have to announce now that they were going to try to make everything work on the 2nd most popular browser, too.

Following Google? (3, Insightful)

MikeCapone (693319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976816)

Well, maybe that, but it's probably more that Google has started officialy supporting Firefox in most things (there's even a rumor about a GBrowser based on Firefox), so Yahoo couldn't be left behind on that.

Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (0, Redundant)

Sp0r (206177) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976322)

I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I browse Slashdot with Firefox the page just doesn't seem to be drawn correctly. But then, there's always the possibility that I'm crazy.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976373)

crazy aye!

I use nothing but firefox these days, /. loads fine.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (1)

nebulus4 (799015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976431)

Nightly build should fix your problem ;)

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976436)

Who cares. I love the irony of all the standards fanboys posting about how great standards are on a site that can't even spell standard and viewing said pearls of wisdom in a browser that may or may not render them correctly depending on some random quirk. Gotta love it.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976623)

Standards fanboys eh? Man, fanboy is a word that's just getting WAAAAY over-used.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (4, Insightful)

thirteenVA (759860) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976637)

I love how people complain incessantly about slashdot standards support.

1) Slashdot was coded years ago, when the accepted way to do things was to nest tables. It may not have been right, but it did the job at a time when CSS had even less support than it does now. Also at that time IE was a leader in the adaption of CSS (remember when NS 4 didn't even support external stylesheets without a hack) and its implementation was still poor. Developers had little choice.

2) Last i checked slashcode was open source. Recode it to standards and submit it as a patch.

3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (3, Interesting)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976772)

It's not nesting tables (that's not really bad in my book, it just slowed down old Netscapes) that is the big problem.

It is the fact the Slashdot pages are invalid HTML.

And rather than fix it, or at least address the criticism, Slashdot gives a 403 Forbidden error when trying to use validator.w3.org.

As if that will make us have confidence in the HTML being valid, making it so we can't even see the errors. It would be like buying a car with a sheet over it, and not being allowed to look under the sheet before purchase.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsla shdot.org%2F [w3.org]

SLASHDOT!!1one (0, Offtopic)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976779)

3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.

I think slashdot does not render correctly in firefox. Maybe they should recode the site.

WTF? I got modded a redundant troll? But you said...

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (1)

HomerNet (146137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976801)

3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.

As long as it remains a problem, people will still comment on it. Possitive ratings for comments only mean that the moderator/metamoderator saw those comments as relevant to the topic/metatopic. When the /code is cleaned up enough for people not to notice the differnce x-browser, then you'll have reason to complain.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976536)

SlashFix extention
or you could just roll your mouse wheel

That is nothing (2, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976539)

Just browse games.slashdot.org with opera. THE HORROR! A good browser but yikes what a horrible color rendering.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976540)

Two points

1) Slashcode isn't W3C HTML compliant

2) usually it's Firefox renders before the page is loaded bug. hit ctrl + , Ctrl - and it's fine.

Of course it doesn't happen all the time either. Some days it happens every time. or i can go weeks in-between.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (3, Informative)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976595)

Yeah, it used to do that for me. But nightly builds solve the problem just fine. The Moox [www.moox.ws] 1.0 build also works fine. If you don't like those solutions though, there's also the slashfix [extensionsmirror.nl] extension.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (0, Offtopic)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976620)

I used to have that problem as well. But I discovered that it was because I had turned on pipelining. Once I turned that off, slashdot rendered correctly again.

It usually manifested itself by drawing posts over the menu. Type about:config in your browser and make sure pipelining is off.

I also noticed that Google Maps has difficulty when pipelining is on as well.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976632)

I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I browse Slashdot with Firefox the page just doesn't seem to be drawn correctly.

This just comes up again and again, doesn't it? Let's recap:

  • The cause is a Gecko bug. It's related to page reflows, which depend on connection speed, page size, processor speed etc., which is why you don't see it all the time (and some people never see it at all).
  • The bug was fixed months ago in Gecko on the trunk. However, Firefox 1.0 (and 1.0.1 and 1.0.2) use the 1.7 version of Gecko, which branched from the trunk around July last year.
  • The bug will be fixed in Firefox 1.1, which will use Gecko 1.8. Firefox 1.1 is due out in June.
  • While Slashdot's HTML may suck like a tornado, it's not the cause in this case.
  • Any questions?

Quick slashdot / firefox fix (4, Informative)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976713)

use the ctrl + and ctrl - shortcuts to increase the text size, then reduce it back to normal. This will re-render the page properly. Why this works, I have no idea.

Re:Ahhhh.... but when will Slashdot? (1, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976718)

whenever I browse Slashdot with Firefox the page just doesn't seem to be drawn correctly.

See that little icon in the upper right corner? The one that if you mouseover says "Firefox Upgrades to Download" or somesuch?

Try clicking on that and downloading the upgrades.

I did that and since then have never had any problems.

Now, the stories I could tell about WebPine [washington.edu] glitches are another matter...

What About Slashdot??!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976332)

So did slashdot fix that bug with Firefox where slashdot wouldn't load up right?

That's been happening a ton with Firefox 1.0.1.

Re:What About Slashdot??!! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976383)

So did slashdot fix that bug with Firefox where slashdot wouldn't load up right? That's been happening a ton with Firefox 1.0.1

Not that I've seen, it still fractures. I think they've left some things open. It seems to vary with the ads.

Re:What About Slashdot??!! (3, Informative)

indros (211103) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976430)

A quick fix is hitting Ctrl + and then Ctrl -

launchcast (5, Interesting)

jkc120 (104731) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976339)

What about launchcast [yahoo.com] ? There's no mention of it in the article, but hopefully that's included. It's one of the few things keeping my wife from using firefox.

Re:launchcast (2, Interesting)

Santos L. Halper (591801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976426)

It did say *all* of their services. I am assuming Launchcast falls in that area.

Re:launchcast (1)

jkc120 (104731) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976453)

Key word there is assume. Hence my question.

Re:launchcast (4, Insightful)

Gorath99 (746654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976567)

I agree it would be only logical to assume that it does. At the very least we'll have something to throw in their face if they don't make it firefox compatible. With a bit of luck this'll also mean that Launchcast will become useable from non-windows machines (if they stay away from writing plugins that require WMP or other such nonsense). Launchcast is one of the very few sites that I want to visit badly enough to occasionally start IE for. (The only other one being my online banking site.)

Re:launchcast (1)

hippie81 (807018) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976665)

I wrote Yahoo! back in February asking them when they were going to support firefox (citing that it was the fastest growing browser with a 20% market share). Here was their reply:

Hello,

Thank you for writing to LAUNCH, Music on Yahoo!.

Unfortunately LAUNCHcast is not currently compatible with the OSX system
or the Mozilla, Firefox, Safari and Netscape 6-7 browsers. At this time
there is no estimated date as to when this service may be available
using these applications.

Thank you for your feedback regarding LAUNCH. It is through user
comments and suggestions that we are able to expand and improve our
service. We are continually updating our programming as a result of
feedback obtained from our users.

LAUNCHcast requires the following in order to properly stream media
content:

PC

* Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4.0, 2000 Professional, XP Home, or
Professional
* Pentium II, 233MHz or faster
* at least 64MB RAM
* Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher
* Windows Media Player 6.4 or higher
* Macromedia Flash 4.0 or higher

Macintosh

* Mac OS 8.5 or higher
* 200MHz PowerPC (iMac OK)
* at least 64MB RAM
* Netscape 4.5 - 4.79
* Windows Media Player 7.01 or higher
* Macromedia Flash 4.0 or higher

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Hopefully they reconsider Launch for Firefox. It's the only reason I still go to the dark side.

Yahoo! (3, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976340)

Well, this is certainly a cause for celebration.
What word could we yell in exultation?
Something short and perhaps cowboy-based?

Yeeeha!

Re:Yahoo! (5, Funny)

OmegaGeek (586893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976460)

>Something short and perhaps cowboy-based?

Neil?

Re:Yahoo! (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976466)

Yeeeha!

And this morning on Radio Classics they were playing an old "Our Miss Brooks" where a hill billy jazz band was supposed to be coming by the school and the teachers, student and principal were all practicing their lingo...

Other to choose from:

Wull, dog mah cats!

Corn mah pone!

Boy howdy

Re:Yahoo! (5, Funny)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976605)

perhaps cowboy-based?

Yippee-kayay-motherfucker?

Yahoo and Firefox compatibility (4, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976372)

Well, that is a great step but, I would like them to support games like Bejewelled 2 and other, that are ActiveX only...

They should make all they games with Java. And, I experience some problems with the calendar also... well, they say, the devil is in the details

Re:Yahoo and Firefox compatibility (1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976727)

There's limited compatabilty, yes. But, yahoo isn't quite "embracing" firefox yet. All it's doing is conforming to the standards. Embracing would be having a link to getfirefox.com on the main page (like instead of those "You could win a FREE iPod" ads, just have a firefox banner). Yahoo being the #1 site on the net last time I checked, having a direct link to ff would kill IE off more quickly than all the ranting us fanboys do here in a lifetime. But, great so far Yahoo, you're doing well! Keep up the good work!

Yahoo? (1)

spidergoat2 (715962) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976375)

I bet they'll support it! They're gonna have to if they want to get their search bars integrated into Firefox.....Hello, adware.

Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (5, Interesting)

Jim_Maryland (718224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976377)

From ZD Net UK [zdnet.co.uk] :

Yahoo said on Friday afternoon that a statement from the company's Australian office on Tuesday, which claimed that all future products would be compatible with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE) browsers, was inaccurate.

In February, Yahoo launched a search toolbar for Firefox, but users of the open source browser were forced to switch back to IE when accessing some Yahoo services. Following communications between Yahoo and ZDNet UK sister site ZDNet Australia , Yahoo issued a statement saying the company would not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring they work on both IE and Firefox.

However, on Friday, a Yahoo representative from the US admitted that the original statement was 'factually incorrect' because, although Yahoo realises that Firefox-compatibility is important, it is not in a position to promise all future products would be both Internet Explorer and Firefox compatible.

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (0)

DJStealth (103231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976515)

it is not in a position to promise all future products would be both Internet Explorer and Firefox compatible


Nope, just compatible with Firefox and NOT IE :)

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (5, Funny)

greyhoundpoe (802148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976525)

Scanning online news sources: 30 minutes
Typing up a quick summary: 10 minutes
Rubberstamp by editors: 5 minutes

Having your submission proven irrelevant within 7 minutes of being posted: priceless

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (5, Interesting)

prezninja (552043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976579)

Is it just me or has there been way too much 'factually incorrect' information in front-page Slashdot articles lately? A very simple peer-review system for facts in Slashdot articles before they go on the main page would do wonders. Additional "+5 Informative" comments could potentially be appended to the article, such as the parent, and more factual and well-balanced news for the general reader would appear on the main page without the need to read all the "+5 Insightful" opinions and "+5 Funny" jokes to just get the facts. It's a humble opinion. What do you guys think?

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976635)

Yeah! Then rename the site something like... kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org] !

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (1)

novakane007 (154885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976813)

mod up parent please

Re:Yahoo not supporting Firefox after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976775)

That does NOT mean they're not supporting Firefox; it just means they're not making any promises.

In other words, it was a CYA so people won't get all pissy if one of their products ships without being completely tested in FF.

Not Correct (4, Informative)

phusikos (784802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976382)

Sorry to spoil the fun, but the article is out-of-date an incorrect. (Gotta love the Information Age!) Today, a Yahoo! representative said that the "full support" statement was "factually inaccurate." [zdnet.co.uk]
"In the grand scheme of things Firefox is still a new technology. I'm not saying we are not going to be developing and exploring other areas -- we are. But there are so many different products on the Yahoo network that there may be some products that are, perhaps, not appropriate for that browser," the representative said.
Hopefully, they'll still be able to expand Firefox support in the near future.

Re:Not Correct (1)

Coocha (114826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976547)

That's really too bad. I don't use Yahoo! for much, but their Launch radio seems to depend heavily on some bastardized combo of IE and Flash (unless you're using the built-in radio in Yahoo! messenger). Either way, it really limits my choices when I'm sitting in front of my Linux box.

Re:Not Correct (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976680)

I'm not sure, but I think the built-in radio in Yahoo! messenger is essentially an "iframe" with IE in it. I get IE errors all the time when that thing bombs out, and I don't use IE at all (standalone), so........

It is still nice news (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976615)

Yahoo is not what it once used to be but it is still a pretty big internet company. Basically it means that in a public statement a company has said that Firefox is big enough to warrant special attention. For a long time IE was the only browser for most companies. If you used anything else then that was just your problem if they even admitted that you could use another browser.

Baby steps. Each company out there that realizes that windows/ie only doesn't make business sense makes the world a better place for freedom of choice.

Lots of people used to complain about banking problems with non-ie browsers. Yet I use the dutch Postbank as my bank and it works perfectly fine with opera on linux and firefox as well. It is slow progress but there is progress.

I can foresee a time when every serious website will simply run on every browser out there. For someone old enough to remember "this site best viewed with" messages or even links to microsoft.com that is a nice vision.

Do you Yahoo? (0, Redundant)

Kimos (859729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976384)

I don't, I Google.
Makes me want to give Yahoo a try for some of their other content though. Nice job!

Well... (2, Insightful)

CarlinWithers (861335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976393)

Support from yahoo is better than not having support from yahoo. But I think what firefox really needs is a major player to go out of their way and advertise and promote them. Can you imagine if yahoo made a statement like 'we reccomend firefox as a superior browsing experience...'. The major thing keeping them from this is fear of M$ to be sure. Too bad.

Competition Is Good (5, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976397)

Once again, it looks like competition is good. I've been bugging Yahoo! for years about supporting non-IE browsers, but only getting automated replies. I guess Google, and its cozyness with the Firefox creators, is enough of a threat that they felt some real heat. I hope this announcement also means that maybe Google will start supporting Firefox and other non-IE browsers when they roll out new toys like desktop search. If Yahoo! and Google keep going at it like this, it can only mean good things for the end user!

extensions ... adblock? (2, Insightful)

lambent (234167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976403)

Let's hope Yahoo finally decides to support Adblock ... right now, their adverts are only partially blocked by most filer sets.

Re:extensions ... adblock? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976592)

then use a Hosts file [http] , that combined with adblock and eDexter [pyrenean.com] means i havent seen an advert/banner on yahoo in months !

Re:extensions ... adblock? (3, Insightful)

pediwent (733291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976627)

Uhhh...last time I checked, Yahoo!'s primary source of revenue BY FAR was still advertising (like higher than 80%). I imagine it will be a cold day in hell when they officially support a product that erodes that revenue source.

Re:extensions ... adblock? (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976768)


I suppose you don't have a tongue to put in your cheek? Was it perhaps removed in a freak boating accident?

Re:extensions ... adblock? (4, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976654)

That would suggest an issue with your filter set, not with Yahoo.

I don't use yahoo, but in about 15 seconds, I came up with this:

http://us.a1.yimg.com/*/promotions/*

Turned it on and didn't see any more ads come up. It may need tweaking after ad rotations.
Hope that helps.

Re:extensions ... adblock? (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976793)


I already use the suggested filter sets from adblock.mozdev.org ... which blocks out the pictures and shockwaves, but has the unpleasant uglifying side-effect of leaving behind random html detritus. And it doesn't block text adverts, either.

Re:extensions ... adblock? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976742)

Well done for the most idiotic post ever on Slashdot.

You get more than one cookie for this one!

Re:extensions ... adblock? (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976823)

no, that award goes to you retarded coward.

Finally. (2, Insightful)

Dimentox (678813) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976404)

It has always been a bother having firefox set as my default browser and using yahoo IM. Would have to copy and pase the url into IE to change my avatar or play games. Is this showing us that companys are finally embraceing alts to IE and its propritary ways? I wish more sites would follow suit and embrace a standard, its a win win situation if they do. While I am sure its nice to be able to use certain functionality of IE there are bound to be ways to do the same things in Firefox. Though it looks like the broweser wars might be back in full swing with IE7 and Firefox going neck to neck.

You'd hope submitters would RTFA (5, Informative)

X (1235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976405)

"...but the company did say it would not launch any new services until all existing one supported Firefox"

No, they didn't say that. They said they wouldn't launch any new services until making sure they worked with Firefox. They don't have a timeline for when they get all existing services supported on Firefox and, not surprisingly, don't want to hold off on launching new services for an arbitrary period of time.

Pledge this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976407)

Pledge? Not to look a gift donkey in the mouth, but this is the first marketing ploy I've heard to 'pledge' accessibility to customers.

And could you pledge.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976416)

To fucking learn the difference between ITS and IT'S, motherfucker?

Grammatical errors (0, Offtopic)

Sloppyjoes7 (556803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976417)

Does anyone else get annoyed when people add apostrophes to possessive pronouns?

In other words, there is no apostrophe in "its."

It should read:
"News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site.

I suppose the only reason this annoys me is because it is such a common mistake in website headlines. To mod me up would help all the starving children around the world who are being subjected to poor English in their news stories.

Re:Grammatical errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976581)

Does anyone else get annoyed when people add apostrophes to possessive pronouns?

I'm not sure. Why don't you ask the people posting to the alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe newsgroup [google.com] .

Re:Grammatical errors (1)

SmokeHalo (783772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976664)

The sentence as copied directly from the story:

News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site.

I understand your point about apostrophes, but in this case there's nothing wrong.

Browser support (2, Insightful)

2k4u (805544) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976448)

I hope they add support for opera too. I use opera as my primary browser and I have all kinds of problems trying to use Yahoo mail. Is it really so hard to make sure your website works with all popular browsers?

Re:Browser support (2, Interesting)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976481)

It's easy to support all browsers except IE, which is where the problem lies.

Not just Firefox, need Opera too (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976674)

I use opera as my primary browser and I have all kinds of problems trying to use Yahoo mail.

This is why my Mac (sadly) at home still uses IE (or did until I heard that Yahoo will work on Firefox for the Mac now), whereas my other Windows boxen all use Opera at home.

Next thing you know... (2, Funny)

suman28 (558822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976454)

MSN is also going to pledge full support of Firefox :)

Ninjas (1)

jbrw (520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976464)

The article doesn't say all previous services will be made compliant before launching new services (they just announced Yahoo! Assassins [littleyell...ferent.com] , remember? Do you think they're going to put that on hold until every obscure service they offer in every obscure market is up to scratch?).

It says "[...]the company will not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring that they work on both IE and Firefox" which is quite a different kettle of fish entirely. Indeed, it goes on to say that "[...] Yahoo would not commit to a date when all its current services--including avatar customization--will be available to Firefox users."

Finally!!!! (2, Insightful)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976469)

Start with the goddamn Launchcast service which would REALLY ROCK with Firefox support. I have an IE window running in my background just to play music at work. It's annoying.

Re:Finally!!!! (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976570)

Why compromise your standards? There are many ways to listen to music online. If an online service doesn't work well with Firefox, I take my business (or, from Yahoo's POV, my *eyeballs*) elsewhere.

Re:Finally!!!! (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976781)

It is by far, the best service of its kind. If there was a comparable service by somebody else that either used proprietary software or worked in Firefox, I'd be on it already. Unfortunately when they have the best product, I am willing to make concessions to use it, but I have emailed them numerous times about supporting Firefox, to which I always got a canned answer.

What timing... (2, Funny)

iJames (846620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976482)

I was just swearing at Yahoo! Movies last night, for promising to show me a movie trailer and then telling me at the last moment that I couldn't do it in Firefox. This was on a Mac, so I wasn't about to do it in IE.

LaunchCast also? (2, Interesting)

thirteenVA (759860) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976491)

I was very disappointed to find that LaunchCast does not work in Firefox(or any mac browser for that matter).

The error message displayed is:
'Sorry, we are unable to support Netscape 6.0+ at this time.'

A good thing. (3, Insightful)

EEPS (829675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976495)

If this is true, It is a great step for Yahoo. I have tried to move everyone I know to firefox, including my mom. The only thing that was holding my mom back from completely using firefox was yahoo's online streaming music radio. Maby finally she can dump IE once and for all!

Music is a Good Thing (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976650)

The only thing that was holding my mom back from completely using firefox was yahoo's online streaming music radio.

Now if I could just get Nathan Hale High School radio (KNHC) to broadcast in a Mac-friendly way - with Yahoo Streaming Music - my life would be complete!

It's all about the music. The rest is just worldly possessions that should be invested in a European value index fund ...

That's good, I think... (1, Redundant)

melonman (608440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976559)

Last time I installed some plugin or other with IE (shockwave I think), Yahoo promptly took over the menu bar, and I've yet to work out how to undo the damage. So now this will happen to Firefox too? And this is something to celebrate?

Wrong, but close. (5, Insightful)

Richthofen80 (412488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976585)

I actually think this is a dumb statement by Yahoo, and I use firefox daily.

Yahoo should not pledge firefox support, it should pledge STANDARDS support. If all their pages validate, and contain the proper doctypes, then Yahoo becomes stardards supporting, and all good browsers that obey standards will render them correctly. They'll also gracefully degrade per platform/browser.

Re:Wrong, but close. (3, Insightful)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976621)

Was going to post the exact same comment myself. :) I'd be MUCH happier if standards were adhered to, instead of focusing on support of specific browsers. It forces the browser coders out there to make sure their support of standards is solid, and in turn makes it a hell of a lot easier for those of us who code web pages to code it once and have it work the same everywhere.

LuanchCast (2, Interesting)

PHanT0 (148738) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976593)

I wonder if this covers partnerships Yahoo! has with other companies.

Being from Canada, Yahoo! has partenered with Rogers to incorporate features like LaunchCast into high speed internet service bundles. I know this is the only thing I currently use IE for as LaunchCast won't support anything but IE... boo-urns.

Type to Find Support (2, Interesting)

slateX (755872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976604)

I am most annoyed that the main search bar at yahoo.com grabs focus when you start typing no matter where you click on the page. This breaks type to find ("begin finding when you begin typing" in options) and I always have to do a find on their page since it is so busy.

This is way overdue for us Mac users (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976619)

At home, I tend to use my iMac to surf the web, and I always start at Yahoo.

So now I can upgrade from IE4 to a real browser like Firefox, safe and secure in the knowledge that my fave portal will work with it.

Kinda stomps on the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, doesn't it?

Re:This is way overdue for us Mac users (-1, Flamebait)

ratsnapple tea (686697) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976685)

Yeah, and then you can upgrade from Firefox to a good browser like Safari. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Fox fires on Safari for Mac (3, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976747)

Yeah, and then you can upgrade from Firefox to a good browser like Safari.

If I wanted to go on a Safari, I would have.

I'd rather twirl Fire with the Foxes.

Something really sophisticated from Dipal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11976689)

WHO GIVES A FUCK!!!

This is NO LONGER TRUE (-1, Redundant)

thesp (307649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11976819)

According to Yahoo [zdnet.com.au] , this has been rejected, and was an inaccurate statement without full authorisation by Yahoo Australia.
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>