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!

Communicator Is Losing The War.....

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the not-all-is-joy-in-mudville-today dept.

Netscape 562

Carnage4Life writes "Here's a ZDNet article that backs up the post by Dave Whitinger..it seems corporate IT types are tired of waiting for Navigator to catch up and may begin to abandon it... Wonder where that leaves Linux users if websites start tending to be IE enabled to perform useful tasks."

cancel ×

562 comments

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

First! (0)

ciurana (2603) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555695)

First!

It leaves Linux users where they have always been. (0)

Johann (4817) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555696)

One word: SAMBA



--

what a big dissapointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555697)

I can see JWZ now...

"Told you so"

communicator (1)

Zlazhman (98515) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555698)

I don't see that where I work. Im a web developer and the company still supports netscape. we don't want to be tied up with microsoft too much and make us vulnerable. but they are right that communicator would have to move forward to maintain their position. Otherwise we would be forced to use web technologies that only IE can use currently. Another thing that worries me is Office 2000 web conversions. These programs are popular or will be in the future. You can save them as a web document. However it won't work well under Netscape.. but of course will work fine under IE.. What if companies do that? that would be troublesome..

ALready actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555699)

Our company has several web applications that are IE only already....BLAH.

Does this shock anyone?? (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555700)

Netscape had lost every software battle it has fought. This isn't a troll, its just the facts - they were creamed in both the client (browser) wars, and the server wars, where Apache and IIS have pretty much put it out of the running.

Now the big issue is, why? Plainly put, crappy products. Their browser is a dog, even worse than IE.

Their servers are woefully inadequate compared to the freely-available Apache, which also has captured the market for server extensions.

As much as Microsoft damaged them with questionable practices, there is no doubt Netscape helped dig their own grave.

Netscape and bugs (3)

slk (2510) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555701)

Netscape, pretty much for the entire 4.x release
process, appears to be unable to release a
solid, stable browser that behaves consistently
across different color depths, and doesn't crash
regardless of what java and javascript do.

By version 4.7, you would think that they'd
figure out how to make Java work consistently,
regardless of how many times NS has crashed
during that X session. By verison 4.7, you would
think that random pieces of javascript (i.e.
what's on /.'s homepage) wouldn't cause browser
crashes under some circumstances but not others.

Finally, you would think that bugs that have
been reported since 4.05 and earlier would
actually be fixed in 4.7, instead of them
just adding new features.

Right now, in terms of stability, netscape
is crap. Right now, if IE was available for
FreeBSD (either native of a Linux version),
I would probably be running it, because IE
on NT sure is a hell of a lot more stable
than Netscape on anything. I don't think IE
has better features. I don't think it has a
better interface. The only reason I care about
IE is that it has less bugs.

Right now I'd also be very very happy to be able
to pay $35 for a copy of Opera for FreeBSD.
It's small, fast, and STABLE! Yes, the most
important part of that is STABLE. Besides being
annoying, flaky software isn't user friendly.

Whee (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555702)

Well, perhaps people should pay attention to what people are talking about in the talkback part of the article. Not to mention that NS5 will have the Gecko engine, so Internet Explorer will definately feel some fear ... Gecko has a rendering subroutine that is really really fast. Internet explorer still seems slow to me on the wind0z3 95 side.

Greaaat! Another incompatible browser (0)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555703)

Why are all these companies seemingly looking for exuses to make their web sites incompatible with X browser--the old NS-only sites, the IE-only sites, etc.? Whatever happened to HTML being browser independant? The WWW is starting to stand for Won't Work Well. Well, it's THEIR throats they're utting: I ain't going to do any worse for not having the opportunity to be advertised to, but thye'll be MUH worse if I make my buying decisions in their self-imposed silence.

WHy bother? (0)

CmdData (68013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555704)

I don't even know why anyone would bother using/developing Netscape anymore. I thought Netscape was achient technology kind of like Linux. They both go well together.

bug fixes needed (4)

trance9 (10504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555888)

A lot of people have a lot of hope invested in communicator. However, Netscape has consistently put effort into adding features, when most of us would just be happy to see it run all day without crashing.

I think we would all put up with a few less features, if the features that we had worked reliably. I suspect that it's not just geeks who feel this way.

Whatever happened to software quality? In order to beat Microsoft, Netscape appears to be playing the same dangerous game of releasing unreliable software. Dangerous for Netscape, because nobody plays this game better than MSFT.

So I know the mozilla people are reading this: Mike, get with it, fix some more bugs. Get people off of features and onto stability.

I couldn't agree more (read: support Mozilla) (1)

MrHat (102062) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555892)

I couldn't agree more that Netscape Communicator has become bloated and buggy. Rather than abandon Netscape, however, we should thrust our efforts into the Mozilla project. Not only will we get a high quality, open source browser, but we'll get another nice stick to beat Microsoft with.

As far as I know, the results of the project will not be "owned" per se by Netscape; this will only aid the acceptance of Mozilla as the standard WWW browser. IT staff will be punished if they adopt Internet Explorer, as it actively violated the standards that Mozilla will (hopefully) support.

My $0.02...

This is news? (2)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555896)

Sorry folks, but anyone who has used both IE and Netscape any time in the last few months could have told you this. I worked at an ISP up until four months ago and I had to be really framiliar with both broswers as we supported them both. As much as I hated to admit it, Netscape couldn't hold a candle to IE.

At least on the Windows platform (which is really one of the only two platforms that are relevant to this discussion), IE is faster, more stable and overall more functional. When it was first released, IE was just a pale shadow of Netscape; just a photocopied feature set. That's not the case anymore.

I have hopes for Mozilla, but I'm beginning to come around to seeing that the delays in getting a production version out are really hurting it. No matter how progressed it is, there needs to be a shipping version within, say, six months. If this is not accomplished or if that version sucks, Netscape will have lost such serious ground that it will have difficulty catching up. Already we can see that their reputation as being a quality product is being damaged.

Man, I hate saying that sort of thing; admitting that MS is better in this case makes my teeth ache.

----

this is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555901)

they've been losing market share to the bundled MS product for a couple years now, whether from the individual or the corp. it type.

their company is basically splintered and gone.

the only hope i see for mozzilla/netscape is that some fallout from the DOJ trial gives them a head up -- for example, no more MS product purchases by the government.

that, or DOJ forces all MS apis to be open and split out the apps. Then (maybe) IE and Mozzilla/netscape could compete head-to-head.

Re:Greaaat! Another incompatible browser (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555906)

the only thing the internet is good for is the same thing it has always been good for - email.

Cause it bites? (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555908)

Netscape pretty much bites as a navigator.

It is unstable, has a hard time supporting standards for HTML/CSS, and the company seems to be too busy trying to make themselves be a little bit of every one to everything instead of releasing a stable, decent product.

As much as I hated MS's Explorer implentation on HPUX (Here...have our X libraries), it was much more stable. If they released a version for Linux I'd switch to it happily.

Re:It leaves Linux users where they have always be (1)

treke (62626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555912)

How will samba help us? It's just for Windows file and print sharing, or am I mistaken?
treke

Another browser to try... (1)

CokeBear (16811) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555918)

Lycos makes one. I haven't tried it yet, as its not available for Mac (They're "working on it"). But it looks like it might be an alternative to the other 2. And Lycos is big enough that they just might pull it off...

Truly depressing thought for a once great product. (2)

GreyFauk (18632) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555920)

I've used Netscape as my main browser for years.
It's been irritating me to no end that it's become such
a bloated and unstable application. :/

With the current events surrounding the M$ trial, one
wonders how much better of a product Navigator would be at this time
if they'd not had to deal with M$'s embrace and corrupt
policy on html/java/javascript standards.
Seems that 90% of the time that Nav crashes on me these days
is on pages that use m$ specific Java-crud. This is
truly irritating.

If IE had been written as a competitive application, by a
company _other_ than m$, without m$'s specific
advantages as a monopoly (which I firmly belive it is), it's my opinion that Netscape Corp. never would
have sold out. In fact, I belive that it would have been a
much MUCH bigger company today and we'd have a much
better navigator because of it.

Without m$'s clout.... IE would have died a horrible, yet appropriate,
Death.

Bummer daze... :(

It's been coming for a while.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555924)

We use win boxes with netscape at the school i work at, for student access as well as staff and faculty. IE presents too many maintenance and security issues. (not that windows itself plays nice)

However, we do have a couple IE boxes. Why? There are government sites that we need to use for one reason or another that *require* IE. This is nothing new, its been this way for years. Pretty hypocritical for .gov sites to require IE, while the us government is involved in a court cases with MS.

my thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555940)

I *personally* would rather see linux stay away from the mainstream desktop for one very selfish reason: I can always get a good paying job knowing unix. If linux went totally mainstream, I imagine I would have a much harder time finding a good paying job. - Luke

ZDNEt? wow thats surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555943)

given the MS slant that advertising dollars creat on ZDnet, i don't really consider them a viable source for objective news.

YES - /. often cores NS if javascript is on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555946)

You cannot use slashdot with javascript turned on using the freebsd navigator, I know that much.

very important (1)

trance9 (10504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555950)


It's very important that netscape/mozilla hold on to a significant chunk of the market--say half or so. Otherwise, if IE is really the only browser, then it's only a matter of time before visual basic crap will start sneaking into the average website, locking everyone into the Win32 platform.

Re:It leaves Linux users where they have always be (1)

Johann (4817) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555953)

Because just like the problem of Linux users accessing files / folders on NT servers and vice versa (the problem solved by SAMBA), Linux programmers will figure ways around the new IE features.

--

I can't think of one program which isn't used more (2)

heroine (1220) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555958)

often to promote Linux at trade shows. For the last 3 years Netscape was the only program you'd see at trade shows. It's in every screenshot. It's the only program dual headed X is demonstrated on. We haven't had anything as flashy to demonstrate Linux on since Netscape. Losing Netscape would definitely put us back a few years.

IE For Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555961)

That leaves us facing the pending reality of M$ pushing their IE for Linux...

Death of the Net Predicted. Film at 11. (1)

knuth (6137) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555963)

This article manages to take good news (Netscape 5 is poised to debut officially) and turn it into impending destruction of the world as we know it. "The release date slipped. So it looks like Netscape is doomed doomed doomed." I guess you still can't get fired for buying Microsoft. But... consider the source: ZDNet, Microsoft's faithful lapdog.

As a web author and user, the new version of Netscape may be well worth the wait. I have heard only good things about Gecko, the rendering engine. If Netscape 5 supports HTML 4.0 better and more completely than MSIE, I will be a very happy camper.

Communicator (1)

nicksand (28560) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555966)

Even though it may be fading in popularity, Netscape still has an incredibly strong userbase. Out of a network of about 50 users (many of whom are not techies), about half have specifically requested that I install Netscape for them (as opposed to using IE, which is preinstalled on their computer by the OEM).

Though it is prone to crashes (especially the Win95/98 version), Netscape still has a lot of supporters out there, and won't be dissapearing any time soon. I think that Netscape 5, once it finally gets released, will become the standard web browser on most internet appliances, and will once again regain lost ground on the Windows platforms.

GNU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555968)

as i understand it mozilla isn't getting much help because it's still tied to netscape. Why doesn't gnu start something? I for one cannot code well enough to make a browser, but i know there are many people out there who can. It would be wonderful for someone to make an actuall OSS browser, and release it for everyplatform possible. We've also seen the wonderful fruits that OSS can reap, why don't we make an OSS, gnu browser?

Mozilla is cool. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555979)

A few months ago I pointed my roommate to the Mozilla page and instructed him to give it a download. His words; "Hey, this is pretty cool." Mozilla rocks. It kicks the pants off IE. If proxies worked I'd use it as my primary browser; it's more stable than Netscape 4.x.

IE vs. Communicator (1)

paxx (91110) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555982)

One of the main reasons IE works so well with the windows operating system is because both systems are made by the same company. IE has access to all the hidden APIs and other good stuff that windows programs get to use, but competitors' programs don't. Not to mention the fact that the source code for the operating system is freely available to the IE development team. But there are some side effects to this.

For one thing, having the browser so tightly tied into the operating system often causes the whole system to lock up when the browser crashes(at least in most of my experiences). Secondly, if the browser is compromised by an intruder, the system is more easily accessed than if the browser wasn't tied so closely to the OS.

My opinion is that it's better to have a seperate browser and operating system because it doesn't cause complete system failures when it crashes and it's not as easy to comprimise the whole system by attacking the browser(like that old IE 3.0something exploit).

Netscape! (1)

RoLlEr_CoAsTeR (39353) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555987)

I hope that IE has a lot of reason to fear when this new version of Netscape comes out.... because, as cheesy as this may sound, I love Netscape, and I don't use IE unless I absolutely have to (not all of the Windoz computers on this campus have zip drives so I can run Netscape).

Kudos to Netscape, whatever they do. (Preferable, however, release that new browser, and make it _good_).

Apache is losing ground to Microsoft too. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555991)

Not only is Navigator losing, apache seems to be sliding. Check out http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ [netcraft.com] to see Netcraft's chart. Microsoft had at big 2.78 percent increase last month. It seems as if Netscape servers are holding their own, so there is one bright spot for the former "Microsoft Killer".

Re:Another browser to try... (1)

brettbender (87275) | more than 14 years ago | (#1555995)

This is merely a Lycos-branded version of NeoPlanet's [neoplanet.com]
'browser'. Ironically, it requires IE, as it isn't really a browser at all.

Re:Proxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1555998)

Proxies do work; that was new in Milestone 10. See the release notes [mozilla.org] .

Re:It leaves Linux users where they have always be (1)

treke (62626) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556000)

Ok, I must have been too tired to get that the first time around. I certainly hope linux gets a good browser. I'll be looking forward to seeing a good browser under Linux, I personally don't like netscape. Any recommendations?
treke

Mozilla 1999-11-06-09-M11 (1)

kjj (32549) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556003)

That what this was posted with.

Confessions of a Netscape Junkie (3)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556004)

There are only 2 real reasons why you'd use Netscape on a mac or win platform.

1. I'm so anti-MS I'd rather use an abacus!

2. Security.

Not that Netscape is bulletproof, but look at IE's trackrecord in the past few months. Something like a dozen exploits, most of which do a lot more than just crash your system. So I patiently wait for 5.0 because I don't need the headache of some exploit trashing my system and I don't want to support a company so lax on security.

Heh, I got a kick out of the guy who lists one of IE's strong points as frequent security patches. If these are the 'experts' I'm glad I disagree.

Re:Greaaat! Another incompatible browser (1)

Lord of Caustic Soda (3117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556007)

Except you have people who cannot for their lifes spend 5 seconds turning off sending HTML emails...

No browser should be set to send HTML emails by default, if the stupid user is too stupid to switch it off, he/her is too stupid to be needing the fancy stuff.

All those people who design bloated, image-ladden web sites with pointless Java programs obviously have not actually used the net much. People usually bitch about sites being too slow to load and don't have the stuff they were looking for, they don't stay away from a site with the information they want simply because it's not fancy-looking enough.

Speaking from personal experience, there were several occasions when I turned away from an online shopping place half way through an order because the damned thing loaded so slowly that my patience started running out and had the time to realise I might not want to buy the stuff just yet...

Longer loading time = more time to reverse an impulse buy

Keeping things a bit on topic: maybe with the dominance of IE we might finally be rid of that Netscape spawn of evil - the blink tag! :)

Okay, long shot...but if the f*cking French can get into Rugby World Cup final, stranger things can happen.

I've Switched (1)

SecretAsianMan (45389) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556029)

In Windows, I used to browse with only Netscape browsers and scoffed at those who used IE. But after experiencing my zillionth netscape bug, I tried IE 4. It was faster, more stable, and integrated more cleanly into the Windows environment. I've been using it ever since. In Linux, I end up either using Lynx or not surfing at all. Communicator is, I dare say, *worse* under Linux. My favorite Netscape bug: The one where Navigator starts ignoring all left mouse clicks. It's been there for a _long_, long time.

Three letters: A-O-L (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556032)

When AOL switches back to Netscape, the numbers will look a *lot* different.

No reason to panic yet.

--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]

we have not yet begun to fight!! (1)

miahrogers (34176) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556041)

I'm currently using the most recent nightly build of mozilla. And in case you haven't used it lately, it's about a month from being ready for prime-time.

The thing that most don't understand is that mozilla is a great browser, and like all great things it takes a while to got it coded. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will mozilla be. Just because Microsoft feels they can release an unstable crappy browser doesn't mean we should loose hope.

The .gov is starting to turn agains microsoft, and so are MANY of the people who are tired of their insecure, unstable, expensive crappy OS's. let's just name a few, HP, IBM, DELL, SUN, AOL, and you can always look to the current prices of Redhat and Cobalt for more inspiration. Those are HUGE comanies, who are very very tired of being raped my Microsoft.

AOL owns Netscape, and will be using the fruits of mozilla as soon as it stableizes.

And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days.


matisse:~$ cat .sig

Ditto on the Mac side (1)

binarybits (11068) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556043)

I too hate to say it, but I've decided that IE 4.5 is better on the Mac side as well. It's a processor hog, it doesn't always render things right, and it has lots of quirky bugs, but it is fast and stable compared with NN. Loading a cached page is much faster, and it renders the page as it's being loaded. IE is the only Microsoft product I've used, but I have to give them credit for doing a decent job with it. I really hope Netscape 5 can win me back.

Re:Confessions of a Netscape Junkie (1)

DdJ (10790) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556047)

Actually, you didn't cover the big reason *I* use Netscape on Windows.

Roaming access profiles.

I can sit down at different Windows boxes, a Linux box, a Macintosh, or even the same machine when it reboots between Win98 and WinNT, and use the same user profile (it's stored on a server). This is a must-have feature for me now, since I work at home and at the office, and at the office I switch between machines a *lot*.

Re:Communicator (1)

My_Favorite_Anonymou (36494) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556049)

I can't see the old Netscape user switch either. The thing about IE5 is that the feature I want in NN4.7 doesn't exist in IE5 either.

1) Short cut image-load on/off (NN3.04 has, I still use it unless I go to some Malicious Netscape3 crashing yankess.com and what has you.)

2) IE does hugh page move left/move right terribly. Yeah I know *sometimes* only IE5 can read /.'s unfinish page. OTOH, the page /. gives me sometimes wider than my 800 px screen. In this situation Netscape is much faster than IE5.

3) IE5 abandon the old good url auto-complete scheme with a evil one. Ironically, netscape adopt this great tradition from IE4 and it's much better. Netscape (IE4) only auto-fill the most recent/frequent used url, which is much more accurate than the drop down list IE5 gives me. You have no idea how slow that is (233 libretto)

4) If I enter a word in url bar that IE doesn't "understand", it will open a fscking left penal to show the search result. It's a pain in the ass to X it. Now this is pretty significant. Once the two browser decides to go different roads and emphasis user habby instaed of subtle speed difference, the users are encorage to stick with their current browser that they are familiar with.


All in all, Netscape is now officially the poster boy victim of MS monopoly attack, people have a lot more reason to give it a second chance.


CY

Re:Three letters: A-O-L (1)

stg (43177) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556051)

The way Netscape is lately and how fractional it's updates are, if AOL switches back to Netscape, at least as it is now, the only number that may change is the number of AOL users.

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556054)

Mozilla rocks dude. To the extent that IT's standardization on IE gives impetus to lazy design websites that don't adhere to standards, it may allow MS's extensions to gain acceptance. As far as pure browser technology, Mozilla is on the right track. I can't wait until it is released. And oh yeah....I'm typing this on Mozilla right now!

Mnemonic (1)

DGolden (17848) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556057)

Try www.mnemonic.org [mnemonic.org]

It's code is marvellously clear, (not like Mozilla's spaghetti mess) since it was conceived as an open-source GPL project from the ground up.
(although their C++ formatting rules make more sense than the GNU official ones...)

They're also keen to get MathML up and running early on - so it's likely to be popular with scientists and engineers.


Re:IE vs. Communicator (1)

PimpBot (32046) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556077)

(I don't mean to be a troll or flaimbait...at least the first one is something I've been wondering about...)

IE has access to all the hidden APIs and other good stuff that windows programs get to use
So? Netscape has access to the Linux kernel and the source for X...why can NS make a Linux specific version of Navigator?

For one thing, having the browser so tightly tied into the operating system often causes the whole system to lock up when the browser crashes
I've got IE5 on my Linux parition, and I use it frequently...last time it crashed was a few months ago, and it didn't take out Explorer (yes, I have the IE4 active desktop installed). Perhaps you have some other problem? Norton software (im my expierece) reduces the stability of a system 10-fold.

My opinion is that it's better to have a seperate browser and operating system You *can* install IE seperate from Windows (don't install the desktop update from IE4)

Ok, now my opinion - yes, MS hasn't been the nicest of companies...but, imho, their browser has beaten Netscape (at least, for now).
--------------------------

Netscape Navigator is in AOL's best interest. (1)

Skynet (37427) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556081)

There doesn't seem to be much mention here that AOL owns Netscape. It is in AOL's best interest to make Netscape as pervasive a browser as possible. It will accomplish this by make Netscape Navigator its core web browser. With the uncertainty of M$'s future in coming months/years, it is only a further catalyst for AOL to switch its core browser to Navigator. Thats millions of accounts that will be using Navigator instead of IE.

The battle might have been lost, but the war is far from over. Navigator has one hell of an ally: AOL.

To summarize: $150 billion in market capital. 'Nuff said.

Re:Greaaat! Another incompatible browser (2)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556084)

The WWW is starting to stand for Won't Work Well. Well, it's THEIR throats they're utting: I ain't going to do any worse for not having the opportunity to be advertised to, but thye'll be MUH worse if I make my buying decisions in their self-imposed silence.

The web should, no *must* be browser independent. It should be standards dependent. If it makes a difference what web browser you use, then someone has abused the web.

I use IE now, because it is the newest Windows browser. I use it in the same way I'd buy a 99 Ford model car because Chevy hadn't released a new model for 2 years to make their 2000 models irresistable. Driving a Ford this year shouldn't prevent me from replacing it with a Chevy next year. And likewise, I should be able to pop out IE 5 and pop in Mozilla without noticing a difference in functionality.

If I do, then the one that's not standards compliant is *wrong* and will be disposed of as quickly as possible. I think that a lot of other people/companies think the same way.

And as you mentioned, if they don't, then they are the ones that are losing. If I am not able to buy a ticket for Northwest online because they aren't out to serve *me*, well, then there are plenty of other airlines to go to.

-Brent
--

IE is just easier (1)

retep (108840) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556087)

I maintain a small network with 13 Windows computers. I never bother to install Netscape. With IE you get it right out of the box. I can do things faster and therefor save my employer time.

Sure Netscape is just as good if not better then IE. And it doesn't have any of the terrible security of IE. (ActiveX anyone?) But it's just not as easy.

I don't support Microsoft on much, heck I use Linux/Netscape exclusivly at home, but I think they made things much easier/faster by including IE with Windows.

Look at all of the Linux distributions. Notice how all of them (other then Debian) install Netscape? It's not much different then Microsoft including IE with Windows.

some thoughts (1)

Xtacy (12950) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556088)

i've seen posts on this thread saying that netscape's server is losing to apache and IIS. Which is true, and some people say that netscape should release more stable software which is also good, but what I can't understand is if netscape doesn't make any money off of its browser, why would they devote so much time to make it less buggy when they should be working on their server product?

Re:It leaves Linux users where they have always be (1)

Derek S (19004) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556091)

The way for Linux programmers to work around the new IE "features" is to pitch in and make Communicator 5.0 a better browser than IE. That way web developers won't even bother straying from the standards. Playing catchup is a good way to lose.

Re:bug fixes needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556093)

Just think, if a company had enough money - they could concievably put so much effort into supporting and implimenting new web standards (not to mention W3C contributions)that other browser developers/contenders would rush their product to market - barely keeping their heads above water - in order to preserve a customer base. Such a company could also limit their browser to one platform and in effect seriously stifle the growth of platforms/projects that rely on the Internet for development!

(MathML) Re:Mnemonic (1)

Mike Bedy (2526) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556096)

Er.. I think MathML already works in mozilla (if you set the correct options during compile.) It was a good example of how extendable Mozilla's layout engine is. As future extentions are added to the browser world, the new Netscape should allow for far quicker/cleaner extentions. That is one of the main reasons for rewriting it.

IE is the standard (1)

CmdData (68013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556098)

I work for Enterprise Rent-A-Car and we hve 35,000 employees and our IT staff deploy only IE to all the PCs in the company. We do not allow software that's not in the standards folder \\fscorp00\images\niche Netscape is not in the niche. IE is faster, can view more websites, and is all arround a better browser.

Re:some thoughts (1)

CmdData (68013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556099)

Because MS does not charge for thier web browser.

Re:Netscape! (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556116)

The new engine is supposedly "quite a bit" faster then the current Netscape engine. It also will incorporate W3c standards, as well as some of M$'s "standards" for interoperability.

Oh, and a new Java engine from Sun :)

Re:Confessions of a Netscape Junkie (1)

gargle (97883) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556121)

Roaming profiles work just fine on IE. My university computer lab uses this.

Give Billy a little credit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556123)

Big Billy deserves a little more credit than this. IE on Linux will never happen.

Re:It leaves Linux users where they have always be (1)

Haven (34895) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556125)

ONE WORD | Lynx |

IT's not IE only, it's that Netscape Sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556129)

"We've done a lot of XML here. I want to bring it to the browser, and I can't have the boat anchor of Netscape saying I can't do it."

There is a lot of bitching and moaning about IE [microsoft.com] specific features. But that isn't always, or even often, the issue.

As a web developer, I have never used a feature that was proprietary to IE. All the HTML I write is compliant with the specs as posted on the W3C [w3c.org] . The problem is that currently IE is the browser that most faithfully implements the open standards we depend on.

It is NOT Microsofts fault that no one else has written a good browser that supports the standards that are freely published.

In other words, Netscape/Mozilla's bugs do NOT mean a site is IE specific.

Browser Wars (3)

keytoe (91531) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556132)


Ahhhh... Remember the days when a Web Browser was used for browsing the web rather than handling every aspect of the internet experience? If I recall, the stability of Netscape started seriously slipping when it started doing mail/news/development. Well, the first couple of iterations of Java and JavaScript were a little flakey, but hey, you'd expect that from new features.

I've found that Navigator Standalone runs much more stably on my Mac than any version of IE. The only thing I can see in IE that I like more than Navigator is dynamic rendering of pages (man, I HATE waiting for these nested comments wrapped in one huge table to load on /.) - not really that much though...

If only Netscape(AOL) would focus on making Web Browsers rather than slapping a shoddy email client (I already have one that works well), a crummy newsreader (got one of those too, thanks) and a composer (that's what text editors are for - ok, I'm a purist ;) into the works. All it seems to accomplish is increase the complexity of the project and suck valuable resources away from the real goal of a Web Browser: Browsing the web!

Re:Netscape and bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556134)

Hey man don't be doggin' Netscape 4.7. Screw W3C standards, we got ourselves a new 'shop' button!

Re:ZDNEt? wow thats surprising (1)

starlingX (67942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556135)

This is true. However, if you consider that this is the LAST thing that Microsoft needs right now, in the light of the recent developments in the Anti-Trust lawsuit, I'm not really sure what to believe. If this didn't come from ZD, I could easily see this as reverse-FUD aimed at making MS look like big olde monopolizers.

Re:IT's not IE only, it's that Netscape Sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556137)

No, but there are plenty of sites that check which browser you're running, and dump you out if you don't I.D. as MS IE 4.0 or greater running on Windows...even if they DON'T use IE-specific stuff. That really sucks, especially since a lot of the sites render fine on things like Opera, Amiga Voyager or IBrowse or AWeb, Mozilla, KDE Konqueror...

Re:Mozilla is cool. (1)

gargle (97883) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556139)

I don't understand these posts which say that Mozilla, in its current state, is better than IE. Everytime I try Mozilla, there are pages which work fine in both IE and NS, but which Mozilla doesn't render correctly. And Mozilla inevitably crashes after I spend any time using it.

Are you sure Mozilla is really better than IE? I assume you're using windows (since you claim that it 'kicks that pants off IE'), so our user experience can't be that different..

You are just plain wrong. (1)

solar (94732) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556157)

As far as servers go, Apache and Netscape are neck and neck, usually running on Sun Solaris machines followed by Linux. IIS on NT doesn't even take home 10% of that market... unless you believe the Microsoft press releases.

Re:Mozilla is cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556160)

IE4? Yes. IE5? Dunno. Mozilla will be king when its final release comes, though. At least for a few months. :) Oh, and proxies don't work in some of the latest builds.

Lazyness (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556161)

Unfortunately, many coders would rather program something glamorous such as an operating system or game. Something that will get them instant fame. Unfortunately we are not looking at where the real development of the internet is and has gone. Therefore we should all download Mozilla, report bugs and suggest patches. Come on you dolts we do it for everything else.

But no, browsers need to be totally free, as in we need to be lazy about it.

Sad huh?

Never happen Re:Three letters: A-O-L (1)

Steeldrivin (32368) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556165)

AOL won't switch to Netscape.

Think about how many AOL users have, and will continue to have, IE installed.

Do you really think AOL wants to make their customers install a *second* browser? And I'm sure they don't want to deal with the customer support headaches that would create.

Re:IE is the standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556169)

Wise words indeed, although the only tool is you. The borg has assimilated you. I still have a mind to choose, thank you very much.

Re:ZDNEt? wow thats surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556170)

And since Andover.net and Slashdot rely almost exclusively on the good will of the Linux community, you consider them objective?

Of course, Slashdot is adding a lot of credability to Linux, so that helps - but it takes it's toll in hypocrasy.

Let's ask again, why is it that the #1 site on the web for OpenSource advocates hasn't released it's own source code in a timely fashion, and is viscious to anyone who asks?

Must be nice - ride the OpenSource wave, keep your own software closed and wait to be bought out.

Huh...well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556174)

They have UNIX ports...solaris and HP, but they are probably going to practice more "monopolistic" practices and not port it to any free unics/BSD (IMHO BSD is different from UNIX, mainly cause of the command differences)

Re:IT's not IE only, it's that Netscape Sucks. (1)

starlingX (67942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556176)


I can think of a few mis-implementations of the open standards that you tout that your MSIE so faithfully implements. However, I'll spare the drudgery of listing them and instead say this:

MSIE sucks. Netscape sucks.

We need something better. Period.

Re:Confessions of a Netscape Junkie (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556177)


Both browsers have outstanding security holes if JavaScript is enabled. IE may in fact have many more, but you only need one hole to create an exploit.

(Basically, both companies have a de facto admission that JavaScript is not a secure technology. The only thing IE gives you is "security zones", which allow you to define which sites JavaScript is enabled for.)
--

Mozilla was Microsoft's Master Stroke (3)

jbrewer (2668) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556179)

Mozilla was Microsoft's master stroke. Not only has it failed to deliver a viable competitor to Netscape, it has also kept any other open source browser project from gaining critical mass.

Re:Three letters: A-O-L (2)

Parity (12797) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556193)

AOL is contractually obligated to use IE through 2001, unless the courts overturn that. By that time, if there's no other browser on the scene, IE will be the only web browser, and the web will be a microsoft proprietary interface.

Barring gov't action against Microsoft, we -have- lost the war. AOL isn't going to save anything. Mozilla or Netscape or Opera in combination with gov't action might.

--Parity

Netscape lost the server war (2)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556196)

According to netcraft [netcraft.com] , Apache has 54% market share, IIS 25%, and Netscape 7%.

NeoPlanet (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556198)

NeoPlanet strikes me as amusing. "Wait. You're saying IE provides a method for applications to be 'web-enabled'? What if we write our own front-end to these IE hooks? We can have our own 'browser' without developing browser technology, per se!"

If I've gotta use IE for something, I use NeoPlanet. Its flashy. And it kinda makes me feel like I'm not really using IE (even though weblogs will pick it up as an IE hit).

Re:Apache is losing ground to Microsoft too. (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556201)

amazon.com switching from netscape enterprise server to apache is a fairly large move -- or at least that is what I would think.

Make sure you read it the whole thing though. (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556202)

Apache still picked up around 250000 new hostnames. Microsoft picked up around 400000, though:
"Much of this came at hosting company Webjump, which offers free web hosting on a system made up of NT machines fronted by a Resonate switch. This is one of the first deployements of NT in a large scale hosting environment, and it will be interesting to see if other providers follow Webjump's lead. Traditionally, hosting companies [who control the great majority of internet web sites] have almost always chosen to run Apache based servers, often on Pentium based systems running Linux, FreeBSD, or BSDI."
While it is an interesting development, there's probably little cause for worry unless it becomes a trend.

Re:communicator (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556205)

Uh, have you even TRIED it?

Most HTML documents produced by Word view fine under netscape...as long as netscape doesn't crash on you.

It's HTML and XML. Nothing special.
Inthe end it's netscape's fault for not implementing new standards, but spend time adding "Shop" buttons and "We'll redirect you to netcentre every second click" type features.

Re:It's been coming for a while.. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556206)

Pretty hypocritical for .gov sites to require IE, while the us government is involved in a court cases with MS.
Hey. US Gov't organizations have plenty of clueless PHBs and lazy web developers, too! :)

Re: Yeah whatever. (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556207)

If microsoft had never made IE netscape would still be the piece of crap it is today.
With IE at least Netscape made an attempt to improve their product...but becuase they had such a munted source base, they couldn't do it.

IE is successful not only cause of microsoft tactics. It's successful simply cause it's better. That's the hard truth I'm afraid.

At Uni, they still use Netscape (refuse to use IE) because they're strictly a Unix only, Non microsoft department. It's pretty sad to watch netscape crumble all the workstations.

Re:I've Switched (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556208)

To refute your Windows claim, I wonder why I.E. 4.0 is so perfectly integrated into Windows

Netscape crashes? nooo I wouldn't have guessed. But I probably rack up at least 10 hours behind it a day without mabye a crash or two - then again, at work We run (ick) 95 - which works much better w/ Netscape. 98 has a tendancy to do a if{netscape then /0} sort of bug.

As per Linux - just so you know - please make certian that you are using the variant that is precompiled for the libc you use... most people get the wrong one and it ends up crashing ... hrm.

At any rate, I'm just ranting l8rz

This is FUD, pure and simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556209)

Sorry, but I'm sick of these ZDNet pro-M$ articles slashing at mozilla... Yes, Mozilla is behind, but in a way its ahead, because its cross-platform support is gonna kick everyone's asses when it comes out.

Was there anything balanced in that article? Sigh. Hopefully the media spin will turn in time that people will actually give it a chance.

Try one of the mozilla builds, they're getting there.

Re:Truly depressing thought for a once great produ (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556221)

wonders how much better of a product Navigator would be at this time if they'd not had to deal with M$'s embrace and corrupt policy on html/java/javascript standards.

What? Netscape invented embrace-and-extend HTML. Take a look at the the whole layers thing in Netscape 4 -- entirely not standards compliant. To some extent, MS has been just going from the Netscape playbook, but generally IE is far closer to the standards than Netscape is currently.

If IE had been written as a competitive application, by a company _other_ than m$, without m$'s specific advantages as a monopoly (which I firmly belive it is), it's my opinion that Netscape Corp. never would have sold out.

Here you are probably right -- At one time it was reported that Microsoft had more employees in it's IE and IIS groups than Netscape had employeed in total (and Netscape was developing mail, directory, and groupware servers also). Microsoft realized no direct profits from that move - it was only done to ship a superior product for free than Netscape was shipping for a price.

Is IE a better product than Netscape? It'd had better be, since more resources were poured into it.
--

Netscape has bugs (1)

CmdData (68013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556226)

"IE surpassed Communicator because there are fewer bugs, a better development staff behind IE, tighter integration with Microsoft products, frequent free upgrades and security patches," said David Howell, director of IS at PED Manufacturing Ltd., an Oregon City, Ore., maker of castings for medical implants and aerospace components. I totally agree with this guy. Since Enterprise Rent-A-Car switched to IE 2 years ago, we have had a much better browser. Our clients/staff/customers are much happier now that we have switched to a browser that supports ALL WEB technologies.

Re:we have not yet begun to fight!! (1)

MrHat (102062) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556228)

Heh... Quoting "about:mozilla". Now that's funny.

By the way, has anyone ever tried typing about:mozilla in the location box of a copy of Internet Explorer? It pulls up a blank, blue page. Any speculation as to why? Is M$ just too used to creating big, blue rectangles? (Cough..NT..Cough)

??? Check ANY stats regarding servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556230)

Netscape not only is way behind Apache, its very far behind IIS.

Sad, But True (4)

Splat (9175) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556233)

Despite all those little alarms going off in my head to ignore this, it's sadly happening, and in my immediate world. Upon arriving back at school this year, I found they finally got the T1 connection up, and the machines have - Internet Explorer 5. I assist in the computer labs and was going to protest this decision, then it occured to me - why bother.

The machines are 486/133's (how sad I know), and they simply don't cut the mustard when it comes to using Netscape. I don't know why (ok I _probably_ know why ... propiterary API's that aren't being shared or whatnot), but Netscape sucks big time on the machines. Crashes left and right, renders like a drunk slug, and takes way too long to load. Meanwhile IE 5 somehow manages to perform efficently on the machines.

I then arrived back at the technical school I goto, to the newly arrived Pentium III's. How odd, we had Netscape last year, suddenly IE's our browser this year. I installed Netscape for a project about a month later and boy, was I surprised. There I was on a state of the art new spiffy Gateway machine, and Netscape's performance was still horrid. IE 5 wins again.

I am (was?) a devout Netscape user. IE had never seen the light of day on my machine. I've used Netscape from version 2.02 to 4.61. My computer dual boots Windows 98 (I just can't kick the games, doh!) and Linux. While in Windows after playing a game, I was using a webpage that required a browser with some of the new specs (HTTP 1.1 or whatnot, I forget exactly.) "Netscape 4.61 or Internet Explorer 4 required". Well, I only have Netscape 4.07 in Windows installed because I don't really use the internet in there. Let's see, I obviously need one of these browsers. I have a 56K modem, do I wait an hour and a half to download Netscape 4.7, or hm, is that "Includes Internet Explorer" I see on that CD there?

I install IE 5. After what seemed about 5 reboots, and about 20 minutes later I'm in Windows on the internet. Boy, this thing just FEELS better then Netscape. I use Internet Junkbuster in Linux for cookie filtering (call me paranoid?), and misc other utilites to customize my browsing. Well I'll be damned, Internet Explorers got all these nice customized "Security Settings" per website you can use. No longer do I have to open up my /etc/junkbuster/cookiefile, I simply add the site to the "Trusted Sites" zone. Nice. I also spend the time to marvel at the faster more intelligent rendering engine IE seems to have, the nice smooth scrolling, and all the other little things.

Fast forward, two weeks later. Sitting in Linux I am, curious on the status of Mozilla. I download Mozilla M10. An excellent work so far, and I look forward to using the final version. The only problem here? IE 5, with what seems to me has almost all the features of Mozilla I'm looking for is out now. Mozilla M20, Gecko, Netscape 5 - whatever it may be called, doesn't look like it's coming anytime soon. While I can certainly wait a few months, my schools obviously can't. And that means IT departments everywhere probably won't. With Linux comes the need for a browser that can perform well. While we all love lynx, it just won't work in corporate settings. Opera looks promising, but it's not here yet, and everyones become too jaded and used to a "Free" browser anyways.

This is not intended as flamebait or whatnot, I'm simply telling the tragic story of how myself, a Linux geek, Netscape loving guy, has unwillingly come to accept IE.

That's ok. (1)

unhooked (21010) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556235)

If a company wants to put up an IE only website,
they just won't get any money from me.

It's that simple.

If it won't run in lynx,kfm,or netscape too bad for them.

Re:Confessions of a Netscape Junkie (1)

Kanasta (70274) | more than 14 years ago | (#1556236)

Actually, seeing as IE security holes get published so often, the average user is probably more security conscious when using IE than NS. Also, at least IE attempts to patch their bugs (maybe?).

NS for some reason keeps taking down my kernel32 on Win98. Argh!! All I want now, is for IE to allow separators in their links, or better still, to use a bookmarks file rather than a folder full of .url shortcuts. I don't like being limited to legal filenames when naming my 'favorites'.

Maybe we could get a group of programmers together to copy NS interface and use the IE engine? Not like NeoPlanet, all it does is skins skins skins. The main brower on NP has a 'special' toolbar which is different from all other browser windows? And it has the same favorites limitations as IE.

So, anyone up for it?

Not FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556237)

Sorry, but in the case, ZDNet is accurate. Netscape is getting further behind IE every day, as much I personally loathe this sad situation.

Re:ZDNEt? wow thats surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556238)

no, i never said slashdot was objective either, becasue you are right. they are not objective. Slashdot has always tended to be about things that Cmdr Taco and Hemos are interested in - and well hey, its their site. And yeah, that fabled 'new slash version' sure has been a long time coming...

Mozilla, Java, Linux, Justice Dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1556239)

I don't care if IE wins as long as it becomes a reliable platform for thin client applications. Microsoft doesn't want it to be that, though. The lack of support for standard Java and the lack of support for all of the major server OSes cripples IE in the long run.

If Mozilla beats IE on technical merits, IE is a goner IMHO. It will go the way of VJ++. Microsoft could spend billions to make IE tiny and cross-platform, of course, but why would they? They couldn't charge for it, and it would only undermine their Windows position (although they may get booted out of that position shortly anyway).

Maybe IE will go open source. I wonder if they implemented it for easy porting.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?