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 and Open Standards the Way Forward

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the but-that's-just-the-wine-talking dept.

Mozilla 254

lamasquerade writes "A major Australian newspaper has a lengthy and detailed feature on open source/standards, avoiding vendor lock-in, and specifically the increasing uptake of Firefox by major organisations' IT departments. It touches on security and price advantages of open source but mainly focuses on open standards -- the perils of vendor lock-in, and their importance to technologies like the Internet and digital music. Linux, OpenOffice.org and even Bugzilla get a mention and all told it is a very pro-open source/standards article, especially considering it is in a mass-circulation publication."

cancel ×

254 comments

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

No lock-in? (-1, Offtopic)

blat.info (744034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008989)

Avoiding vendor lock-in? I guess as long as nobody uses any Firefox specific hacks [blat.info] , then yeah. But what's the harm in vendor lock-in when it's free, I guess.

Re:No lock-in? (2, Informative)

ESqVIP (782999) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009175)

What hacks? The link you supplied is about a book which teaches several Firefox tricks, but not about designing Firefox-only websites. It's for those who want to learn how to take the most from their browser.

Yes, there are features specific for Mozilla browsers, but they are mostly for internal use (XUL, for instance). Not to mention they're all prefixed (CSS properties start with "-moz-"), so you know for sure when you're making something that is not standards-oriented, unlike IE's exclusive features.

MOD PARENT DOWN (1, Informative)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009274)

He's linked to his own page which markets a book through Amazon's affiliate program. The link has only a tangential relationship to the topic, and as the sibling points out, even that tangent is pretty much broken. The post is spam, plain and simple. A quick look at his user page shows it's not the first time he's done it, either.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

Lil-Bondy (849941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009352)

http://img.penny-arcade.com/2004/20040114l.gif - is this the guy your looking for?

eh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008998)

that's very nice, but why should we trust an opinion from the land of Adolf and Arnold?

Re:eh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009061)

Hello, my name is Lloyd Christmas.
Oh, you're from Austria?
Well, G'day, mate. Throw another shrimp on the barbie.

Re:eh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009290)

In Australia, as with the rest of the English-speaking world (yep, that's right; you dumbasses doing your own thing again), "shrimps" are known as "prawns". Thus, surprising though it may be, your sitcom-derived education in geography and culture misled you there, for Australians would, at the very least, be saying "prawn".

It's Aussie (2, Insightful)

schestowitz (843559) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009112)

You did not read this carefully. It's Australia, not Austria. When Austria talk about Open Source, that's nothing new. I am glad to find that the concepts get expanded in the English-speaking world too.

Re:eh (1, Informative)

xeyr (775185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009119)

congratulations, you're a moron

Re:eh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009229)

We really need an "idiot" mod.

For those who don't know.... (5, Informative)

Atrax (249401) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009000)

... it's in the other Fairfax paper [smh.com.au] too

Identical article, but shows that the coverage is even bigger than you might initially expect if you weren't familiar with Fairfax.

Re:For those who don't know.... (0)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009135)

not Fairfax, it is spelled Firefox. duh

Re:For those who don't know.... (5, Interesting)

stylewagon (197083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009154)

exactly, smh even managed to put the firefox logo on their frontpage (albeit slightly rotated for some bizzare reason). see it for yourself: jpg version [smh.com.au] or pdf version [smh.com.au]

Re:For those who don't know.... (-1, Offtopic)

G-funk (22712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009184)

OT I know... but when will Hoppoate be kicked out of the league for life? He's a flamin disgrace that idiot....

Re:For those who don't know.... (-1, Offtopic)

zurtle (785688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009513)

They never banned Mark Geyer for good. Anyway, Hopoate should be old enough to be forced into retirement when his next ban expires. He's a Mormon too, funny how these religious freaks are so barbaric.

If you can't take the violence, switch to watching rugby! Here in NZ, we don't any of that, we only eye-gouge, stomp on heads and give the fingers to offensive South African crowds.

Hmm, South Africa, don't even go there if you want to talk barbaric sportsmen.....

Re:For those who don't know.... (4, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009404)

exactly, smh even managed to put the firefox logo on their frontpage (albeit slightly rotated for some bizzare reason).

Take another look at *how* it's rotated. It is, of course, the Firefox down under.

Uhhhhh (5, Funny)

fishmasta (827305) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009492)

Wow. Slashdot forums in article form. Scary. :::shudders:::

1998 called.... (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009003)

...and wants its article back.

Substitute Firefox with Mozilla, and throw in a reference to The Cathedral and the Bazaar while you're at it.

Re:1998 called.... (1)

ksaville00 (833015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009023)

lol...

Re:1998 called.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009038)

I WANT TO TAKE YOU THERE

Re:1998 called.... (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009072)

The huge difference is: now mozilla (firefox etc) is actually a good browser! We take it for granted now, but linux wasn't as fun before it had a good browser.

This is a public service announcement (2, Funny)

MochaMan (30021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009267)

To save everyone the pain of having to read this cliche five times under every article, I am pre-emptively posting the formula here. From now on, rather than posting it, please simply read this, filling in the template with the appropriate year and item, and keep it to yourself; we'll all be better off that way:

"YYYY called and it wants it's _____ back!"

Thank you for your attention.

Re:This is a public service announcement (5, Funny)

GeorgeMcBay (106610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009382)


"YYYY called and it wants it's _____ back!"


Your formula is going to fail when year 10000 rolls around. And won't you feel stupid for your shortsightedness then?

Re:This is a public service announcement (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009417)

To save everyone the pain of having to read this cliche five times under every article, I am pre-emptively posting the formula here.

1995 called, it wants its formula back!

2003 Called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009389)

And wants that joke back.

The "funny" points should be returned also

Investing in Firefox on Y!'s Buzz market (-1, Offtopic)

otisg (92803) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009010)

This is a somewhat OT post, but it is Firefox related. You can now invest in Firefox on Yahoo's Buzz market [yahoo.com] .

It's all about standards... (5, Insightful)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009027)

It's great to see a mainstream article taking this relatively well-rounded look at Firefox. There have been a million stories about how it has tabs and is free and secure, but that's just a part of the story.

Even if people don't care about any of the end-user features, it's important to support a more open Internet by using clients that at least make an attempt at conforming to standards. Many people may not care about this but there's no way they can care if they don't have the chance to hear about it.

Re:It's all about buzzwords... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009144)

woohoo! "Open Source" is now the latest braindead buzzword, usable by point-haired bosses and con artist consultants alike.

Enjoy your progress, you've earned it!

Re:It's all about buzzwords... (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009283)

I didn't say anything about open source. While I do think that open source is generally a Good Thing, it it is also a means to an end. One of its main roles is in promoting open standards. And open standards are what matters, because they let software of all types compete based on user-oriented features rather than a leapfrog game of who supports DHTML or tags or whatever other garbage they can come up with.

correction (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009299)

That should have been "or blink tags"... the brackets managed to hide it in my final post.

"Open Standards" != software freedom (4, Informative)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009563)

Neither open standards in general nor the state of Massachusetts program (which was recently interpreted to allow in Microsoft's proprietary formats) mean that users get software freedom. For this, one has to request the freedoms of free software and avoid software which doesn't users these freedoms. So, no, it's not "all about standards", it's partially about standards. Free software (with a mature license that has something to say about modern-day freedom-removing dangers like DRM and software patents) will give you open standards, but open standards will not give you software freedom.

Photoshop's ability to load and save PNG files doesn't mean I can inspect, share, or modify Photoshop to suit my needs. Depending on the license agreement and the method by which I have to install the program, I might even be restricted from running the software whenever I want. The closest free software image editing program to Photoshop is The GIMP. The GIMP's native image format is well-documented, at the very least, within the source code of that program which all are free to inspect, share, and modify.

It's all about the new car smell (5, Insightful)

filmmaker (850359) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009029)

"I'm staggered and close to offended that some businesses choose the risk of vendor lock-in, and I'm staggered by the timidity of some IT managers," he says.

There are a variety of orgranizations, large and small, that utilize open source technologies. As was pointed out in a recent thread about the looming IE7, the lack of a centralized, push-button management tool for corporate customers is one thing hampering Firefox. Another thing are applications that utilize Active X and are dependent upon an MS browser as part of their platform. Isn't a lot of high tier banking and insurance software like this; I've read that anyways?

I don't think it's timid IT people. As frightening as it may be, folks who are of my age bracket (28 this summer) are now being put into positions of leadership in technology. People who've spent 5 to 10 years with Linux and accept it. I can't imagine life without Perl and Apache. Simply unthinkable. Firefox and Google are part of this scenerio as well, which is what the author of the article is alluding to: a culture of open source software and open standards.

What I think is so great about Firefox is that it shows the promise of open source in full bloom and it speaks for itself. Nothing's worse than an OSS nerd trying to convince a normal person why they should switch to XYZ program or platform. Not that the reasons lack legitimacy; I'm just saying it's physically painful to watch because most folks don't want to hear it.

But plop a slick "modern car", as the article puts it, in front of them and they immediately reach for the steering wheel.

Re:It's all about the new car smell (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009141)

Most of the IT managers where I work are nearing retirement. At this point they seem timid of making leaps into new areas. As its been said before, nobody ever got fired for choosing Oracle, and that's how it is with IE. These are people who have spent most of their careers dealing with the big commercial Unix boxes (AIX, Sun, SGI, HP) and Microsoft. They don't understand (for the most part) how something without a brand name or big company headquarters can produce and sustain quality software. Hopefully as these folks retire and younger folks move in, we'll see a shift, or at least more acceptance of OSS.

Henh. (5, Funny)

Matilda the Hun (861460) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009037)

Of course major organizations use Firefox. A lot of the filtering software (i.e, Bess) only works on Internet Explorer (or whatever default browser they have). And if they can't play Solitare anymore, they have to do something...

Re:Henh. (1)

emtechs (770821) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009230)

Can't play solitaire! I protest!
Solitaire for Firefox [mozdev.org] has a prominent place in my bizarre cathedral... :)

Re:Henh. (2, Informative)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009396)

Firefox while good still have a long way to go with plugin compatibilities. Java, for one, works insanely slow. Given the same size pdf, I am convinced IE still load faster. Of course, Firefox is superior in every other factor except speed.

Kind of vague article (5, Funny)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009055)

"Which Australian paper did you say it was in?"

"A major one"

"Yeah, but which one?"

"A mass-circulation publication"

"Seriously, which one?"

"It has an article about open source!"

"I see".

Re:Kind of vague article (2, Informative)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009065)

While I am not an Australian, I'd have to say "The Age" is a pretty mainstream publication. I see it linked all the time at Google News.

Re:Kind of vague article (1, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009234)

It is. OP is just being a dipshit and got modded Funny +4 for some reason. Mods: If you don't understand something. Don't mod it.

Re:Kind of vague article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009259)

Some dipships just don't get the joke.

Re:Kind of vague article (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009275)

Perhaps the OP was commenting on the fact that the article was flawed because it couldn't just say "The Age", but had to be vague about it.

Mods: When somebody is being a dipshit by putting down mods for modding up something she doesn't understand, feel free to mod her down.

Re:Kind of vague article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009312)

Im not sure that a link from Google News qualifies a publication as mainstream. As I type this, I find links to "Bayou Buzz", "Lone Star Iconoclast" and "Insomniac Mania". I'd include a link, but by the time anyone clicks it, Bayou Buzz will be gone in favor of the "Laramie Daily Boomerang".

Re:Kind of vague article (5, Informative)

bobinabottle (819829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009195)

The Age is the second most popular metropolitan newspaper that is distributed in the second largest Australian city: Melbourne, Victoria.

Whilst it is not as popular as the Herald Sun, the leading newspaper in Melbourne, it is regarded as the `more intelligent' paper whilst the Herald Sun is the tabloid equivalent.

It would seem this doesn't account for much, but greater Melbourne has a population of over 4 million and afaik The Age is relatively well known internationally.

Re:Kind of vague article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009243)

What, don't you read hrefs?

Shame (5, Interesting)

EdwinBoyd (810701) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009062)

I work for a large company and sadly most of their intranet sites use ActiveX. This pretty much makes Firefox unusable to the point where most pages will display the dreaded non-IE page. There are ways around it for people that know what they're doing but for the average user it's a sad state. The cost involved in switching over to be compliant with non IE browsers is never going to be justified by the IT dept either I imagine this is the same with many large organizations and could be a stumbling block for Mozilla

Re:Shame (5, Interesting)

lemnik (835774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009086)

I to am working at a large coperate with IE as the internal standard (we're not even supposed to have Firefox on our machines). That said Firefox works great on their network (though they don't use CaptiveX). I'd like to see some sites using XUL for admin backends etc. Lets make some sites Firefox and Mozilla specific and see what happens :P

Re:Shame (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009451)

d like to see some sites using XUL for admin backends etc.

Thats the ticket. Encourage more vendor lockin. *rolleyes*

For those who are going to say XUL is open source so any browser can implement. While true, name one non-mozilla family mainstream browser that uses XUL.

Re:Shame (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009220)

Care to tell us what your network uses ActiveX for?

Re:Shame (3, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009460)

Ah, they fell for the lock-in. Since there's no way they'll think far enough ahead to realize "hey, it's going to cost N-squared million dollars* to KEEP IE because we're going to have to bend over to Microsoft in perpetuity", I guess sadly the only thing to tell them is "I told you so." : (

*i.e., more than the cost of switching to Firefox

MoFo == US based charity? (3, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009089)

Mozilla Foundation (aka MoFo) is a "US based charity"??? I would pretty much agree... but this is the MSM [urbandictionary.com] we're talking about!

In any case, it got me interested in De Bortoli Wines [debortoli.com.au] . So I checked out their webserver OS: Netcraft reports:

http://www.debortoli.com.au was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 22-Mar-2005 02:34:05 GMT
I wonder if they financed this article...? I mean, Firefox is pretty damn kewl.

Re:MoFo == US based charity? (2, Informative)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009109)

The terms 'charity' and 'non-profit' are usually interchangeable in this sort of example.

Re:MoFo == US based charity? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009315)

In any case, it got me interested in De Bortoli Wines. So I checked out their webserver OS.

You know you're in geekland when...

Personally, I prefer to check out their wines, and if anyone here's interested, they make a legendary dessert wine called Noble One. If you can get hold of a bottle, it's a worthwhile drink - amazingly intense.

I think you mean "all tolled". (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009092)

I think you mean "all tolled".

Re:I think you mean "all tolled". (1)

mtrichardson (531417) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009136)

Actually... no.

Re:I think you mean "all tolled". (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009193)

YOU SUCK

Is Firefox really more secure than IE (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009099)

Everyone touts Firefox being more secure than IE, but is it really? After reaching a critial mass it will be a target for malware writer and the larger the install base the more bugs that will be found. I wonder if Firefox is really any better than IE (which I consider to be a superior product) when it becomes mainstream.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (5, Interesting)

the_womble (580291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009132)

Everyone touts Firefox being more secure than IE, but is it really?

Yeah, just like what happened to Apache becuase it has a bigger market share than IIS, right?

which I consider to be a superior product

And I consider a 1975 Skoda is a superior product to a Rolls Royce.

You must really like Active X as that is the only "advantage" IE offers that I can think of.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009252)

Think a little harder. Try compatability with more websites than any other browser.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009350)

Go learn CSS and XHTML do mainstream web development for 2 years then come back and tell me how good IE is.

IE has huge problems with even simple Level 2 CSS Rules.

eg: td:hover { background: color: #eee; }

Every other browser in existance after netscape 4 supports this completely.

Opera, Firefox, Mozilla Suite, Safari, Konqueror.

But IE? noooooo.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009410)

Think harder still. See if compatablity with open (as in published) standards is more important in the medium term than alleged compatability with current websites.


That said, the argument I'm going to use if my installation of FF on my work 'puter get challenged is that it correctly renders symbology on many academic sites, while IE does not.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009468)

Think a little smarter. Think compatibility with more standards than that 'other' browser. Your purported superiority is nothing more than another symptom of an anti-competitive monopoly exercising its evil powers. You see, there's a difference between quality and quantity. It's not that IE renders websites better, it's that too many short-sighted web designers write webpages which violate perfectly good and accepted standards so that IE is capable of rendering them (more or less) correctly. That's due to greater numbers of IE users, which in turn is due to the Microsoft monopoly (sorry, but it's true) shipping IE with their OS and making it impossible to really uninstall. Not only is IE the default choice for the overwhelming majority of PC users, there are actually barriers to making any other choice which have nothing to do with the relative quality of the browser. Worse yet, IE intentionally renders correct W3C-compliant code incorrectly - you have to assume it's intentional, as there are few places on this planet with a greater aggregation of programming talent than Redmond, WA. If they wanted it to render clean code correctly, it would. This deliberate perversion of web standards is nothing more than a transparent and immoral (and technically illegal, although intentional lack of enforcement renders that point moot) attempt by Microsoft to maintain a dominant position in the operating system market.

The preceding has been a waste of nearly everyone's time. You, being a troll, are uninterested in relevant facts. You are also unable to spell correctly or even to operate a spellchecker. Nor, apparently, are you capable of offering anything of substance to a conversation, and so you simply spout meaningless and poorly-constructed garbage in a feeble and pitiful attempt to garner the attention of your betters. The fact that the few responses are invariably negative serves, amazingly enough, to whet your appetite further. Why do you torture yourself so? Why do you yearn for the disdain and scorn of others? Can you not see that this path inevitably leads to a complete loss of self-esteem, and that you'll eventually wind up behind the counter at a Radio Shack (or [shudder] Best Buy), pushing cell phones and overpriced cables to the techno-retarded? You are truly a conundrum, o slashdot troll.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009393)

Yeah, just like what happened to Apache becuase it has a bigger market share than IIS, right?
Now you're getting it!

Let's let Secunia tell the story!

Apache 2.0.X [secunia.com]

Microsoft Internet Information Services 6 [secunia.com]

Let's see... Apache has 24 vulnerabilities... IIS has three.

Gee, could this possibly be a result of the more popular product being under more scrutiny? Why yes! Yes it is!

IIS is hacked more because it's built on a house of sand, not because its less secure.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009551)

Apache ITSELF is rarely cause of hack-ins. However, there is a insane amount of Linux web sites hacked via insecure (opensource!) web scripts written in php and perl (phpBB and awstats recently).

Ofcourse, one can claim that it is due to bad system administration, but then again, isn't that the same reason why most windows servers get compromised?

Just compare the percentage of Apache servers [netcraft.com] vs the percentage of zone-h defaced websites [zone-h.com] stats.

If you want to keep advertizing free software solutions as SECURE, you need to MAKE them secure.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009167)

Well, lets hold a contest.

I use a relatively secure browser with a questionable security track record, and you use your IE with unquestionably bad security track record.

In five years well get back to each other and compare notes.

The winner gets a burger king paper crown with the word 'burger' crossed out and replaced with geek.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (2, Interesting)

ColMustard (698424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009216)

It's superior because Microsoft didn't make it and Microsoft doesn't like it. That is reason enough for most people around here; whichever product is actually "superior" is almost irrelevant. Their apparent preference to use software which doesn't tie them to Microsoft does have merit, though. Due to Microsoft's extensive history of security problems (for whatever reason), I'd say any alternatives are a Good Thing, if for no other reason than that there are other options.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (1)

WiFiBro (784621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009419)

Not "just becoz it is not MS": ff really is a bless for web developers. Though k-meleon also is pretty nice, and faster, ff is extendable (Sage for example is a tiny extension to read RSS, compare this to having to install '.net' and a hog of a program), ff has great web developer tools, very nice searchengine bar, very nice page search, and it IS pretty nice what it does to html strict, xml, CSS.

Two words (3, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009395)

No. Active. X.

If you think that's three words, I got news for ya - X is a letter buddy.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009554)

Hey, can I get a job from microsoft to plug their products on /. too? Because they must be paying you a bundle to get you to say that the slower and featureless ie has anything on Firefox.

Re:Is Firefox really more secure than IE (2, Interesting)

cranos (592602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009557)

IE is a huge collection of cludges and hacks tied directly into the OS.

Firefox and Mozilla have had the benefit of learning from the copious mistakes of both Microsoft and the old Netscape browsers.

This is soon to fall. (2, Insightful)

dauthur (828910) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009115)

After a while, the Firefox uptake will slow and so will its overall satisfaction rates, seeing as how I'm already getting popups on some sites now. Sure Firefox is infinitely safer than browsing in IE for excessive reasons, but at the same time, it's only safe because the whole malware world isn't targeting it. When IE7 comes out, I can only imagine a handbrake-style stop in Firefox growth.

Re:This is soon to fall. (1)

Volvogga (867092) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009244)

I'm not so sure it will be as bad as you describe it. Even if the targeting of malware becomes more balanced between IE and Firefox, just going by Microsoft's security patch record, Firefox should end up the on top in this category with faster response to threats. Time will tell, I guess.

Re:This is soon to fall. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009412)

Firefox has been just as slow getting version 1.0.2 out, and they've been getting slower as time goes on. 2 patches in 4 months. I've had more patches on Windows update, as a Windows 98 user. Those are critical updates only, and mostly for IE 6 (might've been one for Windows Media Player). Microsoft does appear to be doing a better job getting patches out at this point in time. Granted, they have to do more work to catch up, but still, Firefox's patching process NEEDS to be more efficient than Internet Explorer's if they want to maintain their current status as being more secure. Especially with malware authors starting to target Firefox.

Re:This is soon to fall. (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009270)

seeing as how I'm already getting popups on some sites now

Could you link to one of these sites? I've yet to find one.

Re:This is soon to fall. (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009466)

See this thread [slashdot.org] for more information.

Re:This is soon to fall. (1)

emtechs (770821) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009296)

When IE7 comes out, I can only imagine a handbrake-style stop in Firefox growth.

Because IE7 will surely run smoothly on every machine out there and people love installing software...

Given twenty some percent of windows machines are running 95/98/Me I don't know how likely that will be. Automatic background downloads will certainly be an edge, but given the slow uptake of the .net framework among the un-coerced I don't see quite a handbrake...

The next generation web apps will be different (4, Interesting)

cyberjessy (444290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009123)

Anyone who is following the IE/Windows road-maps will find that the article is fundamentally flawed, in analyzing the intentions of the Vole. They are not trying to fight Firefox with better HTML and CSS compliance (though that is what they want people to believe). It is all about turning web applications into rich clients. In Longhorn, web sites can present a fully rich client to browsers through Avalon.

Although, I am gonna get burnt for ignoring the benefits of cross platform capability, rich clients do have some significant advantages over web pages. This is especially true when it comes to businesses. For intranet applications, cross-browser compatibility will NEVER be the deciding factor. Security too will not be, since the application will be trusted. Features however will be.

Personally, I don't like the idea of hundreds of powerful PCs simply used for rendering web pages. They are not that incapable.

I know XUL is similar, but I doubt applications will be built on that. IE is standard in most organizations. And most of the Firefox acceptance is since HTML is supported on IE and Firefox. Building an application that will work only of Firefox (with XUL) might be a more difficult decision.

Re:The next generation web apps will be different (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009305)

Personally, I don't like the idea of hundreds of powerful PCs simply used for rendering web pages. They are not that incapable.

I personally love the idea. If I can visit websites that allow me to use a "program" over the web and it be just as fast and good as a well written app on my computer, I will happily use it.I use numerous different computers and it would be a big benefit to me.

Having said that, it won't happen. Because all that has to happen is your internet connection go down and you are screwed.

Re:The next generation web apps will be different (1)

WiFiBro (784621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009439)

Any more reason than that? FF is a not very large, and if powerful XUL applications appear, why would ppl hesitate to install ff to use them?

Re:The next generation web apps will be different (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009483)

Building an application that will work only of Firefox (with XUL) might be a more difficult decision.
That's a good point. Maybe we should implement XUL in KHTML too?

Microsoft wants to control the web as a platform (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009497)

In Longhorn, web sites can present a fully rich client to browsers through Avalon.


Microsoft has always been a software company. And they may put out operating systems and be most-known for Windows, but really their goal is just to control software platforms. The reason they sell the X-Box at a loss is to push the DirectNext platform. They sell Windows, no matter how insecure, just to push their APIs.

Avalon and its related technologies are Microsoft's long-planned attempt to finally gain control of this Internet thing as its own software platform. It's the final fulfilment of the process that started way back with IE4, when Microsoft decided to do anything and everything to get rid of Netscape and prevent the Web from becoming its own software platform. Microsoft ignores web standards because that takes the control of the platform away from them. Right now, if you run a major website, you code for IE hacks and all and hope it works for "fringe" browsers.

Web developers will need to do absolutely everything they can and speak very LOUDLY to prevent the Web from becoming closed. Fortunately, it appears that Longhorn will not be as successful as it was hyped in previous years, but the fact Microsoft is porting a lot of Longhorn's technologies to XP just to get people to use it all is something to keep an eye on, as is the sudden announcement of a new version of IE7 which will no doubt take advantage of Avalon.

P.S. (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009547)

And before you bust out those "paranoia" modifiers, really think about Avalon. It delivers rich client support through the web. Microsoft is trying to leverage .NET and Avalon to eventually fully replace client-side Win32 with a web-based delivery platform. You'll use Office as a subscription-based service through the web, delivered through the web into your Longhorn browser and run as a rich client. None of it will happen immediately, but it's the inevitable process they're headed on, and you can see it coming a mile away. Microsoft is tired of fighting with this open, standards-based web thing and is creating their own software platform using the web, so they don't have to worry about the Internet anymore once everything goes to high-speed Internet2 where app delivery would happen in less than a second.

What standards? (4, Interesting)

HeroreV (869368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009194)

I've been searching in vain to find exactly what standards Firefox supports (or the gecko rendering engine, or whatever is responsible for it). Is there some mystical list somewhere that will tell me what Firefox does and doesn't support? What about XHTML 1.1? Or full CSS 2.1?

Re:What standards? (3, Informative)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009338)

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ [w3.org]

If you don't find the answer there, then search around the w3c site - lots of cool stuff - if firefox doesn't conform, submit a bug report, or patch, or a few bucks to one of the maintainers.

Re:What standards? (3, Informative)

WiFiBro (784621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009518)

From http://www.mozilla.org/docs/jargon.html:
Cascadin g Style Sheets. A W3C standard for defining presentation in Web documents. NGLayout supports CSS1 and most of CSS2.1. Some CSS3 properties and selectors are also implemented.

Also read
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=Progres siveEn hancement
http://emps.l-c-n.com/articles/84/the-i e-wishlist
http://www.alistapart.com/

grumble grumble.... (3, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009221)

I get more and more pop-ups in firefox every day.
is that bad....or good

Re:grumble grumble.... (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009510)

Any word on the progress to fix these? It's not just Firefox; I get them in both Safari and Opera as well. Haven't tried IE.

Re:grumble grumble.... (1)

berzerke (319205) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009584)

Any word on the progress to fix these [popups]? It's not just Firefox;...

Well, for Firefox and Mozilla, type "about:config" in the address bar, right click in the main window, new integer. Name it "privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins" and set the integer value to 2. It will reduce popups, especially if you have flash.

I would also grumble if it weren't for Flashblock. (2, Informative)

ace123 (758107) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009521)

Which web sites?
What version of Firefox?
Do you have Flash installed? Flash uses a loophole in popup-blocking, since plugins are actually different programs (or modules) and can use alternate methods to open popups.

To fix this, install Flashblock (requires you to click to open Flash movies/games (in other words, you have a choice not to open advertisements that create popups.

Adblock is another method that works well. Simply right click to block ads, and there are numbers of blocklists already on the web for you to import.

If you install these two programs (or else just uninstall Flash), I can guarantee that you won't see popups often if at all.

I understand that alternate methods exist, like tricking the browser into thinking it is a "requested" popup, but this can be disabled, and from my experience, I've never had a problem with this.

The last time I have seen a popup was when I was using a public computer, and I didn't have enough time to install Firefox on it. Even there, if you go to the right sites, you will see only at most one popup or so.

Of course they liked it... (1, Troll)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009237)

[begin thick Australian accent]
Firefox, Australian for beer.
[end accent]

Maybe they were confused?

Re:Of course they liked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009388)

I doubt it. IIRC, Foster's isn't very well liked in Australia. And it's not the same thing we drink in the states. In the states, they just pay Foster's a licensing fee and put their own (much better, or so I'm told) beer into the can.

Re:Of course they liked it... (1)

cranos (592602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009422)

As opposed to
[Thick Australian Accent] Fosters, Australian for sheeps piss we sell to the Yanks
[/Thick Australian Accent]

Re:Of course they liked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009470)

No silly - Firefox is popular here because we tell them it's free as in beer

Tech Coverage at The Age (2, Interesting)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009304)

The Age has surprisingly good tech coverage for a daily newspaper.

They had this interview with Theo de Raadt last October.

Theo de Raadt Interview [theage.com.au]

Flaws in Mozilla browsers soar: study (1)

xquark (649804) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009311)

Same newspaper is saying that "Flaws in Mozilla browsers soar"....

Arash

The quote businesses need to see (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009416)

Check out this from the article:

On standards, Firefox has an advantage over Explorer. That gives organisations latitude to commit to standards rather than to products. That in turn reduces the leverage that vendors have over customers.


Microsoft has hampered standards support in Explorer for five years with its go-slow campaign against the web. Standards-oriented page layout is not possible on most versions of Explorer (CSS box model). Explorer has never met standards for web document identification (HTTP MIME content types), or if one is supported, then simultaneously the other is not. Microsoft has shown an antipathy to web standards, because in the view of many they provide an alternative to the Windows desktop - Microsoft's core business. The success of web-based applications such as Amazon, Google, eBay, the open source Wikipedia encyclopedia and online banking point to the decreasing importance of Windows in a world where a web browser is sufficient.

Look, a major newspaper calling out Microsoft for its obvious "Go-Slow" campaign. When more and more businesses start understanding at this point, and more and more businesses start understanding the implications of the lock-in they have let themselves get into - then things will get interesting.

That second paragraph not mine... (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009431)

Messed up the italics - the full quote is:


On standards, Firefox has an advantage over Explorer. That gives organisations latitude to commit to standards rather than to products. That in turn reduces the leverage that vendors have over customers.

Microsoft has hampered standards support in Explorer for five years with its go-slow campaign against the web. Standards-oriented page layout is not possible on most versions of Explorer (CSS box model). Explorer has never met standards for web document identification (HTTP MIME content types), or if one is supported, then simultaneously the other is not. Microsoft has shown an antipathy to web standards, because in the view of many they provide an alternative to the Windows desktop - Microsoft's core business. The success of web-based applications such as Amazon, Google, eBay, the open source Wikipedia encyclopedia and online banking point to the decreasing importance of Windows in a world where a web browser is sufficient.


That'll teach me not to always use Preview...

Don't rest on your laurels (3, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009512)

I just hope that they keep innovating.

Extensions for IE such as Avant and Maxthon can do pretty much everything that firefox can do (tabs, popup blocking, gestures), so don't get too comfortable with catching up based on a few features missing in the de facto standard.

Not everyone, sadly, cares about the free principles, open standards, etc.

Re:Don't rest on your laurels (2, Informative)

WiFiBro (784621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009534)

Cool. And what extension mimicks the javascript console, the web developer extension, the search-in-this-page-while-i-type, the Sage rss extension, the multi-engine-searchbox?
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>