Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Explorer Destroyer

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the thats-pretty-funny dept.

417

slayer99 writes "I came across Explorer Destroyer yesterday, which is a project that aims to increase the market share of Firefox in a slightly more proactive way than is usual. They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox. As a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program."

cancel ×

417 comments

That's retarded (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231864)

Why bother with scripts and such? All you need is IE's own conditional html comments [microsoft.com] .

Is this easy (3, Informative)

Life700MB (930032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232128)


As simple as this:

<!--[if IE]>
...your firefox referral goes here...
<![endif]-->

To get a referral just talk to google [google.com] .


--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

That's _exactly_ what we need... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231867)

...another browser monoculture. Morons.

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (5, Interesting)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231903)

There's no guarantee that this will cause another monoculture. AS Firefox becomes more popular, people will likely see that they have more choices for browsers (rather than the old IE = internet mentality). Over time, other browsers will be embraced based on how well they compete with Firefox. And unlike with IE, Firefox is actually competing fairly.

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231932)

That is just pathetic - soon there will be banners "Using Windows - switch to Linux, you will like it better, and maybe we will let you in our website". Doesn't firefox get enough promo already? So now they resort to spam. Say no to both and use Opera..

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231950)

When is that scheduled? About two weeks after a cure for cancer is found?

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232019)

Why wouldn't they just switch to a "Firefox = Internet" mentality, especially if they were forcibly switched to Firefox by a geek who "knows what's best for them" without them learning anything or making their own decision?

You missed an important point (4, Insightful)

njdj (458173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231995)

..another browser monoculture.

Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message (unless browser options are set to lie about its identity, which is probably not a smart thing to do anyway). This initiative is not intended to lead to a browser monoculture.

Having said that, I would have preferred to see a script which detects grossly non-standard behavior, rather than a specific browser. I'd have no problem with MSIE being dominant if it respected agreed W3C standards.

Re:You missed an important point (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232077)

That wouldn't be enough for me, if the tools MS provides creates non-standard web pages (which their IE will display correctly), still leaving W3C compliant browsers in the cold.

Web browsers should be able to diss out a 1 minute time-out for non-compliant web sites. To get a significant uptime, that would force creators to make the website compliant.

Bert

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232084)

Until IE falls below 30% and Firefox goes above 30%, your concerns are unwarranted. Until then, there is still a lot of work to do.

Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232089)

/closes eyes
*thumbs up*
Good for you.
Thanks.

Unbelievable. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231869)

Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

Re:Unbelievable. (3, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231893)

Can you give an example of what you're referring to? When has Microsoft or its friends encouraged downloading software, and the idea was condemned by open source advocates?

Re:Unbelievable. (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231899)

If you use the "Level 3" code, you effectively block IE users from your site, making it nonfunctional. Isn't that what IE-only sites are doing?

Re:Unbelievable. (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231924)

As far as I know, people say that's a dumb idea, and I agree. But the question is, do open source advocates condemn it? If so, can you show me where?

Re:Unbelievable. (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231993)

Not specifically Microsoft doing it directly, but rather ignorant web designers/developers forcing you to use Internet Explorer or whichever browser.

But this time it's coming from aparently 'clued up' people, with the promise of a pot of gold just over the hill.

At the end of the day the only thing it's doing is helping to create another mono-browser culture, rather than using standards based websites to provide information to older, future or crippled generations of browsers via graceful use of markup/stylesheets.

I hope this fad doesn't last.

Re:Unbelievable. (4, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232115)

Uhm no it isn't. Every single browser except IE has superb support for W3C standards. As long as any non-IE browser gets more market share, webmasters who want to design a website according to the W3C standards will be able to do so, instead of holding themselves back and resorting to IE-specific hacks to make the website render correctly in IE, just because IE's the only one that doesn't render things properly.

Re:Unbelievable. (2, Insightful)

larien (5608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231895)

My thoughts, mainly on option 3, however... A banner "ad" suggesting Firefox is the most you should use, to be honest.

Re:Unbelievable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231914)

Agreed. Also, why force people into using Firefox? Are we trying to lock users into another web browser? There are plenty of other browsers out there besides IE and Firefox.

This is ridiculous, really. What if Microsoft launched a campaign to send full page DHTML banners to Firefox users about IE7? What kind of uproar would we have over that?

Re:Unbelievable. (5, Insightful)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231992)

Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

Absolutely.

I would like to point out that this "project" has been pushed (possibly by its creator) on SpreadFirefox.com for quite some time, but it has met with the appropriate response: NO. Link to the post [spreadfirefox.com] . I'm an active SFX member, and I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.

I know the creator of those scripts is trying to help, but his/her aim is terrible.

Re:Unbelievable. (3, Interesting)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231997)

Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

You seem to assume that because it's on Slashdot, Slashdot and its readers think it's a good idea. I don't believe that's the case.

It's a stupid idea, and it's against ideas that are more important than open source. It's against the idea that the network protocols should be client-neutral, and that graceful degradation should take place when you use a client that (like IE) sucks.

It's stupid, and it won't work.

Not that i personally approve (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232037)

But sometimes you do what you have too in order to fight the 500lb gorillas in the world.

Re:Unbelievable. (2, Insightful)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232053)

Yes. And when Microsoft uses it, it's a monopoly with a billion dollar marketing budget using it to promote a monopoly. When Firefox uses it, it's a community project trying to get noticed against Microsoft's billion dollar ad budget. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference, but it's a big and important difference nonetheless.

Re:Unbelievable. (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232065)

Isn't this the same kind of actions that open source advocates condemn, when Microsoft and friends use it ?

Obviously this is just one misguided project by a small number of people -- it wasn't given a consensus mandate by the community.

In any case, this sort of "shat upon IE" thing has been around in the zealot camps for some time. While Opera is my primary browser, and Firefox is my secondary browser, occasionally I browse with IE. Every now and then I come across some lame, evangelical site that denies me access on the basis that I'm colluding with the great Evil Microsoft by using Internet Explorer. I hit back and never visit that site again -- the world doesn't need idiots trying to unnecessarily coopt others.

Re:Unbelievable. (4, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232102)

I expected a post like this to be modded up to +5 Insightful. But frankly, you people miss the damn point!

Look at all the IE-only websites. Firefox has reached about 10% market share now, yet there are still people out there who develop for IE only, with no legitimate reason to do so. If you speak to those webmasters, you'll probably hear something like "I don't care about the minority". Why is this a problem? Because as long as IE has the most market share, it holds back the W3C standards!
  • For example, IE doesn't support PNG alpha channels. This is 2006, every single browser but IE supports alpha channels, there's absolutely no reason for IE to not support it! Yes yes I know about IE 7, but how many years will it take before it's out? IE 7 won't have a significant market share for a long long long long time, and during all that time we're stuck in the no-alpha-channel-dark-ages. And yes I know about the PNG hack, but I shouldn't have to use it! And the PNG hack doesn't work for background images (translucent background images can be very useful for rounded borders or shadows).
  • IE's (at least version 6's) XHTML support sucks. It has almost no XHTML support. XHTML is rendered as HTML 4, but a bigger problem is that IE doesn't even support the application/html+xml MIME type!! As a result I'm forced to configure my web server to send text/html as MIME type, causing all the other browsers to interpret the document as HTML 4 instead of XHTML. This makes XHTML almost useless.
  • CSS support. IE doesn't support the 'overflow' property, for example. IE's support for 'margin' and the 'em' unit is broken.
  • And numberous other things. When I design a website, I test it in Firefox and Konqueror, and validate the code with the W3C validator. If it's valid, and it works on Firefox and Konqueror, then it usually works on Opera too. But not IE. Almost every single time I have to use IE conditional statements to include a custom, IE-specific CSS to fix the layout.


This has got to stop. As a webmaster, I'm sick of hacking my website to be IE-compatible while I'm already W3C-compliant, and I'm sure many webmasters are sick of it too. The only way to fight this is to ensure that IE loses more of it's market share. We cannot wait for IE7, that takes too long and who knows what else Microsoft refuses to fix. Yet Firefox still doesn't have more than 10% market share. It's time for more aggressive weaponry, because apparently you can't win by playing the nice guy. Plus I'm sick and tired of all the IE-specific sites. The only way to get rid of them is by decreasing IE's market share.

I don't care what browser will have the most market share, as long as it's not IE (or IE shells). Every single modern browser out there has good support for W3C standards - except IE.

Rose-colored banners. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231877)

"They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox."

"This site best viewed with Firefox."

WaSP Browser Update Campaign (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231878)

The Web Standards Project (WaSP) ran a similar Browser Update Campaign [webstandards.org] a few years back.

Re:WaSP Browser Update Campaign (2, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231902)

It's also similar to Google's latest Firefox campaign. Just visit Google [google.com] with IE to see what I mean.

Completely different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231905)

WaSP's campaign was simply to get people to upgrade to browsers with better standards support. They didn't care if it was IE6, Firefox, Opera, Safari or whatever, as long as it wasn't completely broken when it came to standards. Some would argue IE6 is now relatively completely broken when compared to other browsers, but this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.

Your Mission: Get Under 50 (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231926)

this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.

O rly? "Your Mission: Get Under 50" in the article [explorerdestroyer.com] describes a stats page that tracks sites that have fewer than 50% page views from Microsoft Internet Explorer. The end is less IE; the means is more Firefox. If the goal were to advocate Firefox to replace Opera or Safari or Konqueror, the mission would be "Get Over 50".

CMDRTACO IS A NIGGER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231880)

nt

Annoyance as a marketing technique? (5, Insightful)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231881)

Is it just me or does annoying the people you're trying to attract sound like a poor idea? I know when I am annoyed by something I'm more likely to resist. For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

I think if I were an IE user I'd refuse to use Firefox on these grounds. Impress me on technical or philosophical merits, not by being a bully.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (4, Interesting)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231913)

How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231933)


How many times have you come across a website which, in stead of giving you content, advised you to update your IE to 5.0 or higher?


Better question: Do you still visit those websites? I don't.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231973)

I do: User Agent Switcher 0.6.8 [mozilla.org] , but you're right, we shouldn't have to do this stuff.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (2, Interesting)

witchgirl (965487) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231962)

That's the kind of website you usually lose interest in fairly quickly due to their lack of consideration for non-IE internet users.... I, for one, never go further than that advice and look for information or business elsewhere.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231951)

Don't blame the bunnies! Eat the militant PETA people!

Remember, membership in PETA is a strong indicator of vegitarianism, and we all know that the meat of herbivores tastes much better than the stringy, gamey meat of omnivores and carnivores. Yep, PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Activists!

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231977)

Microsoft thinks it'll work with getting people to use so-called "genuine windows versions".

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (3, Funny)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231994)

For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

My argument exactly . . . if we're not supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat? ;-)

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232047)

Please note that I never said anything about eating the bunnies, that's far too practical a death. I said I would skin the bunnies and wear their bloody firs as a coat, casually discarding the meat.

The point being that when someone is particularly annoying I often feel the urge to do exactly the opposite of what they advocate. Mindlessly slaughtering bunnies for wasteful coats is pretty diametrically opposed to the stance an annoying PETA person would take.

As an aside, not all PETA people are annoying, just a very visible few. It's kind of like ESR and the Open Source movement.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

the phantom (107624) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232120)

Just so long as you don't rape them to death, eat their flesh, and sew their skins into your clothing.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232005)

I use IE exclusively, I guarantee you if I see this banner ad once it'd be the last time I ever see it.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232025)

I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!

You didn't say you were going to eat them. Vegetarians can wear fur coats too.

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232059)

That's very true. Really, though, how many people who object to eating meat on moral grounds (I'm implicitly assuming here that vegetarians are so on moral grounds, not for medical reasons.) will feel comfortable wearing a bunny fir coat that still drips with their blood?

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232149)

Uhh!! I'm not a vegetarian, and I'd still feel uncomfortable wearing a fir coat dripping with blodd - just imagine the stink!

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

Deviant Q (801293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232044)

For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat...


There's some kind of bad pun in there for me to make... something about bunnies and bloody fir trees... like... "I didn't know bunnies had their own personal menstruating trees." Except funnier...

Ah well, I suppose I shall leave it to more insightful intellects than I ;).

Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (1)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232073)

I don't have a pun, but I do have this: Bunnies bleed furiously while beating off behind bakeries.

but explorer is needed (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231883)

Nice idea, but a lot of ignorant banks and such do not realize there is more to the world than microsoft and don't excersize compatibility in their coding. Most likely, people will be stuck witht 2 browsers eventually.

No, it isn't (2, Insightful)

njdj (458173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231925)

There are plenty of banks whose websites conform to W3C standards, and which consequently are usable with Firefox. I don't have any problem with my on-line banking (with Firefox, of course). Maybe you should change to a better bank? If your bank is backward in the way you describe, it probably has other problems which are not yet apparent to you.

Only bank in town? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231956)

Maybe you should change to a better bank?

Do you mean "Maybe you should change to a better town?" I lived in Terre Haute from 1999 to 2003, and the only bank in town was Terre Haute First Financial. And for several years, First Financial's web site worked only in IE and in Netscape 4.x.

Re:No, it isn't (1)

carlislematthew (726846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231990)

Washington Mutual just "upgraded" their online system. They changed some, not all, of the pages to ASP.NET from ASP. The ones they upgraded (bill pay was one) are broken in Firefox - they look like crap. All I had to do to find this was log in, pay a bill, and hit "submit". This is something that I would have expected they test...

Anyway, I emailed them to bitch about it. I imagine that others did too, as the site is currently down.

My point is that even WaMu (the "better bank" in many regards) still has shitty testing and compatibility issues.

Oh, lovely, it's spyware (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231885)

function hasIE_phoneHome(image) {
  if (document.getElementById)
    {
      var img = document.getElementById(image);
    }
  else if (document.all)
    {
      var img = document.all[image];
    }
  else if (document.layers)
    {
      var img = document.layers[image];
    }
  img.setAttribute('src','http://getunder50.com/ping .php?host='+location.host);

}

Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (4, Informative)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231938)

They're just collecting site - browser id pairs for statistics, because they want to know which of the participating sites have under 50% IE visitors.

Oh lovely, site owners can opt out (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232029)

And not only that, but web site owners can also opt out of this statistics collection. From the "Your Mission: Get Under 50" sidebar in The Article:

Here's how it works: if you want to you can turn on code in those scripts that will pass stats to our site about the percentage of IE users who visit.

Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232144)

Your argument, if it were valid, would legitimise any spyware.

Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232063)

Yea, I'm adding that domain to my hosts file for blocking. Assholes.

Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232138)

script error
img.setAttribute is not defined

Netscape 4 (the document.layers conditional statement)

good to see they know about Javascript versions and what browsers support which attributes

a simple document.images["imagename"].src woud be better and supports everything (including WebTV aka IE3)

TACO IS FAT AND UGLY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231886)

nt.

not keen (4, Insightful)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231889)

Ya right, I want to explicitly drag the browser war straight into my commercial web sites. That should help business. What kind of web sites will you see with banners telling the user to switch? This is no better than the old "Designed for x Browser" buttons that were displayed in the past. In fact this is worse.

Re:not keen (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231917)

The right technique to use would in my view be to code standards-based web pages without a single IE bugfix, and perhaps display a little banner on top (similar to the "we blocked a popup" notifications, no larger) with the text "Experiencing problems? See here" and a link to a page explaining why the site might look like crap when using IE.

That's what I will do on my site, at least.

Re:not keen (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231923)

However, I'm actually effectively blocking IE users since I haven't bothered to send a different header than "Content-type: application/xhtml+xml" to IE users... perhaps I should?

Re:not keen (1)

Unski (821437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231981)

They would cut my cock off and make me eat it from a cocktail stick if I decided to use this on the commercial sites I manage*. And just trying to advocate this one to my customers would lead to some (rightly) vexed expressions as I explain that it would be better in general if I blocked the browser they use.

For that matter I don't think any of the levels of seriousness would be tolerated by them. They've seen me use Firefox, some have commented on it, and one has adopted it as his personal browser on his laptop. That's it though. Using this tactic would make some of these people dig their heels, at the moment, there is a nice gentle, gradual curiosity thing going on across my client base. This might be preferable to these more up-front tactics.

* OK they would just dispense with my services. Poetic license...

Please, please don't! (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231916)

As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it. There are already the first trojans aiming for FF, and I'm not sure if I want them to become more.

Also, it's not really a program I can support. Inform those that don't know about their options, but don't get on their nerves. Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?

And how annoying this is?

And how it doesn't want you to make IE your standard browser even MORE?

Why would you think it makes someone use FF instead of IE if you keep bugging him just the same way IE pesters you?

Turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231970)

Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?

I just turn off the "keep bugging me" checkbox. In IE 6, you can go Tools > Internet Options > Programs > Uncheck "Internet Explorer should check...".

Re:Please, please don't! (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231982)

As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it.
By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers.

Re:Please, please don't! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232039)

Wrong. Hackers attack IIS because they hate Microsoft. It has nothing to do with which has more holes. In the "31137 h4x0r" (non-)culture, it is very fashionable to believe that "M$ is teh evil." You get a lot of "IRC creed" among all the un-socialized 12-year-olds when you go after "Mickey$oft."

Re:Please, please don't! (1)

thefogger (455551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232041)

Do you have any proof that hackers attack IIS more? I was under the impression that recent versions of IIS have a far better track record than apache, security wise.

Re:Please, please don't! (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232139)

Actually there was a study linked here that showed that Apache-based sites are hacked more than IIS-based ones.

AFAIK, there's never been any evidence that IIS servers are "attacked more", unless you consider a couple automated wormes that attacked everything.

"Ethic" hackers vs. "commercial" trojan writers (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232146)

We're not talking about hackers trying to "prove" that ISS is insecure, or some people defacing some homepage. There's no money in that, and that's something done by people who do it for bragging rights, for street (or rather, IRC) credibility and for their ego.

Trojans are a business. The amount of POCs and ego-boosters is dwarfed by the number of commercial trojans and worms. Hacking servers and taking down sites is no business. Trojans is.

Now, to be profitable, trojans need a high penetration. And for this, they have to work on as many machines as possible. That's one of the reasons why there are VERY few trojans/worms for Mac and Linux, and as far as I know, there are actually NO commercial trojans for those systems. It doesn't pay as well as writing one for Windows. And if the browser is an issue, your target for a commercial attack is the IE. Simply for its penetration.

Why not just keep crashing IE? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231919)

No, it's not the same behaviour as Microsoft uses. Microsoft are a monopoly with billions behind them.
Anyway, my thought was, wouldn't it be better to just include all the common code in you page that crashes IE? If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough.
Mind you, I have a friend (who used to be a Unix admin), and when I advised his girlfriend to use Firefox, he said, No, no point. Not sure what the motto is there.

Blue e == Teh Intarweb (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231983)

If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough

...not to go back to "those sites that crash the Internet" anymore. Some people either don't know or could care less (that is, could barely care less) about the existence of other web browser software.

Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? (1)

carlislematthew (726846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232008)

Yes, thank goodness that Google is not a monopoly with billions behind them.

Shit, I just did it for the cause! (2, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231934)

Still need Firefox yourself?
Grab it here: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]


1. You need a Google AdSense account to make referral money for each user switched. If you don't already have an account, click this button to sign-up: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]

Then he goes below down to wash his hands clean by explaining that Google won't go bankrupt from this campaign, so it's perfectly ok to be retarded and lock out 80% of your visitors.

Oh and by the way this "script" shows the "you use IE" message on many builds of the original Mozilla Suite. Amateur.

Firefox Deterrent (4, Insightful)

gihan_ripper (785510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231943)

Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again.

Worryingly, the wording of this site makes it sound as though Google is affiliated with ExplorerDestroyer, which is very far from the truth. In fact, I imagine that Google would be worried by this page as it detracts from their "do not evil" ethos.

The Browser Wars 2.0 (2, Interesting)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231954)

I for one expect that the competition between IE and the Google-backed FF is only going to increase in the months to come. I am torn. I can't help but approve of this, simply because it will diminish the market share of IE further. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, being harassed leads to resistance; the project might backfire.

Note: my anti-IE bias is based soley on being a web developer. MS has been fighting the interweb from day one, and IE is all the proof you'll ever need of this.

Related: a few days ago, my XP Home box started acting very strange: whenever I typed anything into a form in FF, it crashed. IE, Opera both remained fine. Malware? ID10T? ...or is Microsoft "fixing" things again?

Baad Idea (2, Interesting)

pardasaniman (585320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231957)

What happens when microsoft retaliates? That would be bad.

All the websites made by frontpage, and whatever servers running IIS, suddenly boot firefox..

seriously, this is a terrible idea. Let's not stoop to their level!

Also, Is it possible some users would think it's some kind of spyware? Users that were advised not to install stuff just because a website asks them too?

How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer?

Re:Baad Idea (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232070)

If Microsoft retaliates? They started this and nearly killed Mozilla with it. This is Mozilla's retaliation against Microsoft using Microsoft's tactics.

Re:Baad Idea (1)

wang33 (531044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232097)

How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer? I tried this. It didn't bring the splash screen up for me under opera even when id'ed as IE.

Imperialists! (1)

Better.Safe.Than.Sor (836676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231966)

". . . as a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program." . . . unless you're in Canada and ineligible for this referral program. C'mon Google, your regular adsense program works here howza about this one?

Shouldn't they follow their own rulez?!?! (2, Insightful)

jedimaud (838215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231972)

Hmmm.....I surprised they don't follow their own rules, I could view the site perfectly in ie without being asked to switch to firefox.

So stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15231991)

This is so stupid, one should respect everybody's choice. Why don't IE or Opera user do the same when Firefox is detected to ban Firefox? Firefox has had a number of security issues too. It's not much better than IE.

gg hypocrits; nextmap (2, Insightful)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232004)

What the fuck? You're talking about crippling consumer choice to force your ideas on them and make money for yourself? Are you sure you don't WORK at Microsoft?

Seach engine crawlers (1)

obli (650741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232009)

Seach engine crawlers will pick up the huge banner and your cached version will look like shit despite that nicfty code that's supposed to limit it to IE. I'm just saying...

Dragon NaturallySpeaking (1)

Nastajus (971902) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232013)

Software that allows users to controlled the computer by voice only works fluidly with Internet Explorer. Those users would have difficulty.

SafeSearch is off! (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232022)

Check out the Google image link on that page. Looks like someone's turned SafeSearch off... ew!

To obstructing. (1)

guice (907163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232038)

I'd go along with the site if it was a simple ad like Google's site, but it's not. It's a giant obstructing window preveting the user from acessing your site. The very same thing that makes me dispise IE only sites; "You must use IE 5.5 or greater to view this site." Ugh!

Annoying (4, Insightful)

danimrich (584138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232042)

This is annoying for those who cannot switch browsers for one reason or the other. In my opinion, web developers should aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible. Including Internet Explorer, Lynx, mobile phones and old Netscape versions. Usable does not imply that the site needs to look pretty in that browser, but people should be able to access the (text) content.

Your users will have a reason why they use a particular browser, and often it's not because they're too lazy/dumb to install a "better" one.

Google Toolbar? (1)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232049)

What a horrible way to introduce people to firefox! As for me, Google's toolbar comes in handy when I'm forced to use IE, But firefox's google toolbar seems...weak.

Using it (1)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232060)

I've been using this at "level 2" for a month now and nobody has complained so far... Nor have I got any money through the referral program that google has but my website doesn't get that much IE traffic to begin with. When you open my website up in IE you get a banner across the top telling you to get firefox. the website itself is still functional but you will always have that banner if you're viewing it in IE. Here are my stats: since the start of this year: 52.3 % firefox 38.7 % IE last year: 45.1 % IE 44.7 % Firefox my website is targeted towards the more techically capable but I'm proud that firefox is now the dominate browser.

Re:Using it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232085)

Your web site is crappy anyway. Who would complain to be banned?

Re:Using it (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232105)

How can you tell whether it's successful though?

1) Are visitors using IE switching to Firefox?

or

2) Are visitors using IE annoyed with your use of the banner and not coming back?

Both of these options will show a rise in Firefox (percentage wise) and a decrease in IE (percentage wise and absolute figures).

Better approach to a bad idea (2, Informative)

eddan (903540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232074)

This is definately not the way to attract new users to FF. However, if you want to do it, using a IE infobar [hishamrana.com] is way cooler.

IE is obsolete! (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232075)

Come on people, IE is obsolete (not to mention evil). It needs to be left in the digital dust where it belongs. There is really no good reason to continue developing for that ancient archaic bug infested dll murdering browser.

Sure too many people are still using it. But if 90% of the world were still running Netscape 2.0 just because they didn't know any better, would you REALLY want to continue designing for that or just tell people that they need to get off their lazy butts and upgrade already?

IE is holding back the web and we need to take action!

uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232091)

This is the kind of behaviour which makes me hate firefox.

no big deal (2, Insightful)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232121)

I think Score:5 posters comparing it to the tactics of Dr. Microsoft forget that this feature is non-obligatory and you need to spend actual time inserting it into your webpage.

As for idea itself, I agree, it is too aggressive.

It would be better if someone will come up with the idea of how during every IE crash instead of "bug report wizard" (did they hire me for that?) some "buy firefox wizard" would popup.

Re:no big deal (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232155)

Well, FireFox is free so "buy firefox" wouldn't fly. How about this: Clippy pops up and says, "It looks like your Internet Explorer has crashed. Would you like me to install FireFox instead?"

AdSense Violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232122)

You need Google AdSense for this, and this website is in violation of the terms and conditions for AdSense:

https://www.google.com/adsense/policies [google.com] :

"""
Incentives
Web pages may not include incentives of any kind for users to click on
ads. This includes encouraging users to click on the ads or to visit the
advertisers' sites as well as drawing any undue attention to the ads.
For example, your site cannot contain phrases such as "click here,"
"support us," "visit these links," or other similar language that could
apply to any ad, regardless of content. These activities are strictly
prohibited in order to avoid potential inflation of advertiser costs. In
addition, publishers may not bring unnatural attention to sites
displaying ads or referral buttons through unsolicited mass emails or
unwanted advertisements on third-party websites. Publishers are also not
permitted to use deceptive or unnatural means to draw attention to or
incite clicks on referral buttons.
"""

So to say "Click here to get Firefox" doesn't seem allowed. Strange, considering that Google is providing sponsorship for this? Or am I just understanding the terms incorrectly?

Stupid, stupid... (3, Informative)

holiggan (522846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232142)

This is the kind of zealotism that each day drives me farther from Firefox and more into the arms of Opera...

I've been using Opera for a long while but lately I've given Firefox a try... It's nice and all, but Opera has some neat details that Firefox lacks. A very simple and frivolous example: I can move my tabs from the top to any other the side! Yeah! Oh, Firefox has an extension for it? Is it the one that breaks with every new Firefox version? You get my drift...

Anyways, I see less and less advantages in Firefox when compared to Opera. So Firefox is opensource... well, I couldn't care less. It's the same if someone said "hey, don't drink Coke, drink Shomke, because we know the recipy and we can all change it!". I don't give a flying rat's ass about code and source code, I, as a end user, just want things to work a certain way. And Opera does work that way, and does let me change things around out of the box. In Firefox, we need a stupid "extensions" just to clip a toenail in the interface.

"Firefox can't do this" "Hey, here's an extension" "Firefox can't do that" "Here's another extension". Prety quickly you will have a handfull of extensions, that might or might not break with the next Firefox version...

Heck, I'll give you another example! There is an extension to (gasp!) minimize Firefox to the system tray, right next to the clock. In one of the last Firefox updates, that extension stoped working at my computer at work. Yes, FF is updated to the latest version and so is that extension, but everytime I use both together, FF just displays a big, empty window, with *nothing* to click or any menus. And guess what! At my home computer, I have the *same* version of both and it runs fine! And don't go blaming it on Windows, because I'm using the same Windows XP in both computers. Oh and in Opera, the hotkey for that specific funtion is Ctrl-H. No extensions, no breakups...

So, about this whole "holy-war" agains IE... I'm just sitting and watching, waiting for the inevitable moment when this will blow on the face of the zealots... remember folks, FUD works both ways, and if you spread FUD to suport your product of choice, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.

And heres a little site for you to read: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyt hs.html#Security [comcast.net]

Doesn't use his script on his site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232150)

I don't get it. This guy running a website which is advertising a script to either nag IE users or block their access entirely, yet he hasn't even put it on his own site. Surely that'd be the first thing you'd do?

why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15232154)

Why are so many people obsessed with reducing the popularity of Internet Explorer? Firefox is better, but not by much.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...