Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox Now Serious Threat to IE in Europe

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the our-logs-show-nobody-using-ie-anyway dept.

Internet Explorer 384

Tookis writes "Mozilla's Firefox web browser has made dramatic gains on Microsoft's Internet Explorer throughout Europe in the past year with a marked upturn in FF use compared to IE over the past four months, according to French web monitoring service XiTiMonitor. A study of nearly 96,000 websites carried out during the week of July 2 to July 8 found that FF had 27.8% market share across Eastern and Western Europe, IE had 66.5%, with other browsers including Safari and Opera making up the remaining 5.7%. In some key European markets FF has already reached parity and is threatening to overtake IE as the market leading browser."

cancel ×

384 comments

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

Hoo-ray (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866393)

Junk (I.E.) is being replaced with more junk (Firefox). Yes, it's better junk, but junk none the less.

Re:Hoo-ray (5, Insightful)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866419)

Junk (I.E.) is being replaced with more junk (Firefox). Yes, it's better junk, but junk none the less.


At least it isn't proprietary junk that doesn't follow standards and tries to shut out the competition. It's a step forward.

Re:Hoo-ray (-1, Flamebait)

sunami (751539) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866447)

At least it isn't proprietary junk that doesn't follow standards and tries to shut out the competition. It's a step forward.
Just to play through with your argument here (which carries on the other who said "trading crap for crap"), that sounds an awful like saying "Nazi Germany? at least it's a step forward from Communist Russia!"

Re:Hoo-ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866469)

Just to play through with your argument here (which carries on the other who said "trading crap for crap"), that sounds an awful like saying "Nazi Germany? at least it's a step forward from Communist Russia!"
God-winned!

Re:Hoo-ray (1, Flamebait)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866549)

Thinking that Nazi Germany is better than the Soviet Union? Yay for the school system on your country.

Re:Hoo-ray (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866757)

No, see, the school system wants you to think Nazi Germany is worse.

That's why they often don't even cover the genocides and social cleansing and other atrocities in the Soviet Union. You know, the ones you don't seem to know about.

PS, you mean "the school system 'in' your country". Also, your first sentence doesn't have a subject, or doesn't have a verb.

Re:Hoo-ray (1)

chiefbutz (924863) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866775)

I am now in college and the public schools I attended NEVER touched on the Soviet Union, and they just barely touched on WWII. Basically we talked abot American History... as if I hadn't heard it ever year for 12 years....

Re:Hoo-ray (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866797)

No, see, the school system wants you to think Nazi Germany is worse.

Yeah, the well-known insurmountable power of communism over Western school systems. I'm pissing my pants.

Re:Hoo-ray (5, Interesting)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866481)

I think the success Firefox is having at the moment will drive its development further. Because it's not a commercial product we're not going to get the IE experience where the lazy bastards never fix anything and just add features that are broken. There is a genuine drive to innovate and make something that withstands the scrutiny of the community.

Maybe it will pave the way for some proper competition like Opera and others, which are bound to win more market share as the firefox using public start to hear about other alternatives.

Personally though, I've found Firefox to have gotten better and better with time. It's gotten very stable and has plug ins which run well and reliably. It's definitely ready for prime time.

Re:Hoo-ray (5, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866939)

And AT LAST, Internet Explorer is back to where it belongs: A nice tool to download Firefox. ;-)

Protectionism? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866967)

Does this statistic underline or undermine the argument that integrating and bundling IE with Windows harmed the competition? The answer to that has wide ramifications. Not just for MS. Depending on how you define markets, someday things like the Iphone may face the same questions. However the Iphone will have atleast one advantage, since it was bundled with Safari from Day one, when it was not yet a dominant player, it cannot be argued that Apple abused a monopoly position move into a new technology area.

OMG ! OMG ! Eeeeeee(hu)eeeeee(hu)eeeeeee(hu) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866745)



OMG! OMG! Eeeeeee(hu)eeeeeeee(hu)eeeeeeeee(hu) OMG! OMG! OMG!

Re:Hoo-ray (1, Interesting)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866793)

What's its problem? Does it not browse the web? Is it insecure? Is it unstable? Is it unpleasant to use? Does it lack features? Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? Is it poorly programmed?

For those of you who answered yes on the last count, ask yourselves this: Is it worth dismissing the entire software as junk?

For those of you who answered yes again, ask yourselves this: Why are you so f*****g picky?

It's about Freedom. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867019)

What's its problem? I'm not sure, let's see!
Does it not browse the web? Yes, but so does Dillo.
Is it insecure? Yes. With special mechanisms like BHO and sabotaged java engine it's unsafe at any site.
Is it unstable? Yes, using it means you get to wipe and reload your computer once a month.
Is it unpleasant to use? Oh God, yes. Even when you don't consider the obtrusive OS it requires, the lack of features is glaring.
Does it lack features? Try Firefox or Konqueror for a while.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.

Why are you so f*****g picky?

I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?

The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.

Re:It's about Freedom. (4, Funny)

anethema (99553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867045)

He is talking about Firefox :P

That's because (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866403)

Europeans love foxes. Rawr!

Re:That's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866943)

Yeah, but they've banned hunting them in the UK :-(

Re:That's because (1)

Andrewm1986 (1013059) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866991)

You've obviously not seen the fact that in the UK we've had to force through a ban on fox hunting...

The middle and working class love foxes.

The upper class doesn't!

Browser usage (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866417)

CmdrTaco reports from the our-logs-show-nobody-using-ie-anyway dept. but this has got me interested: what are the percentages of usage of browsers for accessing Slashdot?

Re:Browser usage (1, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866461)

To me, this is evidence of a better educated society in Europe. I think a larger portion of the population over there understands the politics behind software (and anything else, for that matter).

Mod Parent Offtopic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866563)

Please don't reply to the first post just to get your comment on top. Your post has nothing to do with Slashdot's access logs.

Re:Mod Parent Offtopic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19867167)

someone got pissed for reading a comment not praising the all mighty US giants and instead complementing europeans. Does a compliment deserve to be attacked in the grounds of "OMG it isn't complimenting me!" Damn whiny jealous bastards.

Re:Browser usage (0, Flamebait)

nbert (785663) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866655)

To me, this is evidence of a better educated society in Europe

Or maybe it's because people in Europe are in general less skilled on the computer / not willing to take risks, so people like me are asked to install a proper set of programs for them.

Re:Browser usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866657)

NONSENSE

This is because the Yurpeens are atheist libruls [shelleytherepublican.com] !!1!

Re:Browser usage (0, Redundant)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866673)

Can someone offer up a Flamebait mod point for the parent post's aggressive stupidity?

Re:Browser usage (1)

z_gringo (452163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866839)

Just guessing here. You are an American?

With an inferiority complex?

Re:Browser usage (2, Funny)

jimbug (1119529) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866479)

oh, you know it's links!

Re:Browser usage (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866497)

Mod parent up, please share some details!

Re:Browser usage (2, Insightful)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866765)

How relevant would the Slashdot figure would be, anyway? Of course a bunch of geeks worth their salt wouldn't use IE unless somehow forced (work computer, office policy and such).

Re:Browser usage (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866875)

It's not relevant, only for those who visit the site. I guess people are just curious, that's all.

Re:Browser usage (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866581)

Mod parent up, but can we also have a breakdown on weekday Vs weekend figures. During the week, a lot of people are accessing Slashdot from work, where they are not allowed to install non-IE browsers. At the weekend (hopefully) the percentage of Slashdot users at work will be lower. Just don't forget about time zones...

Great (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866455)

Now I'm going to have to find something more obscure to avoid the attentions of the malware makres... what was the name of that other one... Icemeasles?

Re:Great (4, Funny)

muffen (321442) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866475)

If you want to avoid malware, go for Lynx, I bet you there isn't even one threat that works under Lynx.

... the actual webpage might not work either, but that's just a minor detail :)

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866859)

Lynx might not have known threats at the moment, but Lynx has had it's share of them also. At least two (highly critical) of them listed here:
http://secunia.com/product/5883/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

Re:Great (5, Funny)

yohanes (644299) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866915)

Ah, even lynx can be exploited (for example: http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-206-1 [ubuntu.com] ) to make room for malwares.
I want to use wget, but it is also has a history of bugs that can be exploited [google.com] .
I'll stick with telnet, and parse it with my eyes. Although it is a bit difficult for HTTPS sites.

Re:Great (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866841)

Icemeasles?


RiceDiesel

Re:Great (1)

freakxx (987620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866923)

Dont forget IE7....after a year or two, you may find it a better candidate :-)

Re:Great (1)

Lavene (1025400) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867053)

Now I'm going to have to find something more obscure to avoid the attentions of the malware makres... what was the name of that other one... Icemeasles?
I just upgraded to the latest Icemeasels and it's great! No two page views look the same! MiceTeasels seem to render every page with a random font size offset, bold is really b o l d and italics doesn't work. The Twicegiggles developers are of course hard at work and it should be fixed soon.

Nothing is like a good fork! (Yeah yeah... I know Icepeacle is not a real fork, it just feels like one)

IE 7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866471)

Once you've seen IE 7, you too will want to switch to any other browser.

Re:IE 7 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866601)

Ya? What does a stupid conspiring louisiana brain deather like you know anyway? Just stfu already.

Re:IE 7 (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866635)

Once you've seen IE 7, you too will want to switch to any other browser.

You're telling me I want to go back to IE 4 all of the sudden?

IE 4 vrs Dillo. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867113)

You're telling me I want to go back to IE 4 all of the sudden?

Dillo would be easier. As a bonus it has tabs and better rendering. Both, however, have fewer digital restrictions and would be preferable to the terms of use of IE7.

Firefox, of course, offers better rendering, more user customization, ease of use, security and hardware choice than IE7. Combined with GNU/Linux, you can install Firefox on just about any computer without loss of modern web standards, flash and all that. IE7 is PIII and above because it only works with XP and Vista. With IE7 you are stuck with the choice of seven year old software that has to be patched and still sucks or software that barely runs on the latest and greatest multicored watt burner.

Re:IE 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866937)

Sorta like when we saw your mom....made you want to go gay.

Re:IE 7 (4, Insightful)

quintesse (654840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867033)

You might be modded funny, but it's TRUE! I don't know what MS was thinking but IE7 is butt-ugly! It's turning in one of those christmas tree decoration interfaces like those media player skins. Out the window with consistent design etc, let's make it actually more difficult to use our products, maybe then the people will understand the added value of windows! No, really , I have NO idea why they're doing it, it just seems illogical.

Re:IE 7 (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867139)

IE 7 made me switch from Firefox back to IE. Because it was available I used to use firefox 80% of the time, since IE7 was released Ive had no reason to use firefox unless some old website was not designed properly.
Mind you I do use Vista, therefore I am not sure if the Windows XP version of IE7 works as good, I cannot remember if I had issues with it or not. As an IT professional I have no issues with spyware/viruses regardless of the browser I use.

Wish for US (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866503)

Well, I wish that were the case in the US. There are still *FAR* too many sites that have IE-only components. So, although the vast majority (90%+) of sites we use (at work) work for us (we use only FireFox), there are still a few important sites that cause a nightmare for us. Since we use Linux only, running IE is not an option. (And yes, I know about emulators and IES4Linux, which are nice, but don't work everywhere, don't work well for thin clients, and/or are difficult to maintain).

What is more irritating is that those few IE-only sites are about 95% working with Firefox. There are usually only a few parts of the site that don't work (but that is all it takes). With minimal correction/effort, those sites would work on any platform. But even after repeated begging (on one, for YEARS), a few such sites have still had no interest in "fixing" things. I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases.

Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.

Re:Wish for US (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866595)

IE Tab [mozilla.org]

Re:Wish for US (1)

gratemyl (1074573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866913)

Since we use Linux only, running IE is not an option.

Re:Wish for US (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866931)

>$this->isa(joke)&&laugh()

I assure you, it is not a joke, nor is it funny

Re:Wish for US (1)

gratemyl (1074573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867057)

Well, if $this->isa(joke) == 0, then $this->{funny} == 0, quite clearly, so yes, you are very correct about that.

But you shouldn't be laugh()'ing either - since $this->isa(joke) == 0, laugh() will never run.

Re:Wish for US (2, Funny)

gratemyl (1074573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867103)

Oh, and god bless($this, joke) - there you go, laugh()!

Re:Wish for US (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866979)

>IE Tab

Runs under MS-Windows only.

Re:Wish for US (4, Interesting)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866641)

I was reading a few weeks ago that, in Europe, the impetus to change web sites that only supported IE was significantly increased by showing how large a market share they were missing out by tying their site to proprietary software 'standards'. I am trying to find the professional journal in which I read the article and, when I find it, I will try to find if there is an electronic link that I can post here for others to read. The usage of Firefox, Opera et al in Europe is much higher than in the States and so our businesses have much more to lose but the principle is the same wherever you are, particularly in these days of globalisation.

There is no need for a IE-Compatibility mode in Firefox/Mozilla, simply get MSIE to use the accepted standards and the problem is solved.

Re:Wish for US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866685)

simply get MSIE to use the accepted standards and the problem is solved.
Oh, I see, that does sound simple! Why didn't anybody think of that before?

Re:Wish for US (5, Insightful)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866725)

Now look, I didn't say the Microsoft isn't stupid, but changing the rest of the world to suit MS is not the way I choose to go. Why should we modify everything else to suit one company?

But the solution is easier still. MSIE doesn't have to change, if people just stop designing websites that use MS-specific extensions. It can be done, you know. MSIE can accept whatever it wants but if no-one is using MS specific extensions then it will still work.

Re:Wish for US (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866753)

According to some large site's owners/administrators (in the top25 traffic-wise in the country) that I was talking to, they're actively supporting web browsers that pass 5% marketshare in their logs. I guess it is just sound business sense.

Lesson: Complain. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866873)

My rate of failure these days is less than one percent. It's very rare to find a site that I NEED that is IE only.

I do wish there was a version of Firefox/Mozilla that had an IE-compatibility mode... "FireIE Fox" or something, for use in such cases. Fortunately, another few broken sites finally "saw the light", probably due to complaints from people like us, and fixed things.

It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. The great thing about Firefox use is that it punishes people who blindly set up M$ servers or carelessly cater to IE. It's foolish for a company to turn away 1/10 of their customers but suicidal to turn away 1/4 or 1/2.

M$ can't win this one. Their browser is harder to use and less secure. The only thing it has going is the few sites you have noticed but those are bad for the business that runs them.

Re:Lesson: Complain. (2, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866959)

>It's better to complain and get the issue fixed than it is to waste time on the endless task of chasing M$'s tail. Well, I agree with that, which is why I *do* complain, and give lots of info and why. I also tell my staff the same thing, and also my LUG. But if they don't fix it, it is still me that suffers. This is a case where I can't choose to just "use another vendor", unfortunately.

For the first time... (1)

deesine (722173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867031)

last week, I found a site that worked in FF, but not in IE. I use the IE-Tab extension in FF for those sites (mostly news sites with video) that do not work with FF. I had the IE-Tab activated and next thing I knew the site I went to (sorry, don't remember which one) wasn't working. I went to turn on IE-Tab not realizing it was already on. I smiled.

notice to rest of you. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866525)

The universe wide conspiracy against me got pwned, lol!

You'll rue the day you decided to fuck with me for all the dumb shit y'all did, bitchez!

signed,
you perpetual fuckups know who.

Methodology (2, Informative)

echucker (570962) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866529)

While the article doesn't mention how, a previous study [xitimonitor.com] on XiTiMonitor's site shows that they're using share of visits by each browser type to the sites in question.

Where do the stats come from? (3, Interesting)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866609)

From the largest site i have access to - a medical online shop, in fact: last 30 days: IE: 78,26% of visitors Firefos: 16,33% of visitors Gets funnier if you look at the revenue: IE: 85,9% of revenue Firefox: 9,46% of revenue. I can not really see "great advances". Firefox is a respectable and solid nr 2, but that basically is it.

Re:Where do the stats come from? (5, Funny)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866763)

From the largest site i have access to - a medical online shop

Ah, it's you! Stop sending me email. :P

Re:Where do the stats come from? (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866845)

So you're saying that your sample is indicative of the trend, while a much larger sample consisting of 90k websites - isn't?

Re:Where do the stats come from? (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867065)

Well what would you expect from someone who posts on /. admitting he's a Microsoft MVP? ;-)

Re:Where do the stats come from? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867087)

A large degree of masochism, personally. :)

Not what we're seeing (3, Interesting)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866623)

This is not at all what we're seeing with a UK based employment site with ~40,000 hits per month. What we see is 55% IE 6, 25% IE 7, 12% FireFox, 4% safari, and all other browsers below 1% (every browser from opera to lynx (!!)).

If you don't have a job... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866671)

what are the odds you don't have a computer? How many are accessing the site from public libraries and state run employment centers? There could easily be some considerable bias in your numbers.

Re:Not what we're seeing (1)

kriss (4837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866719)

It's important to keep in mind that 'Europe' is a number of hugely disparate markets. If you say that 50% of the (commercial home) internet traffic in Scandinavia is BitTorrent, 50% of the traffic in parts of southern europe would be eDonkey. You'd need to sample a LOT of different countries and types of sites to get a fair picture, extrapolating just about anything from just one and saying 'this is Europe' is doomed to be irrelevant.

Re:Not what we're seeing (2, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866837)

It is no wonder if you see low statistics in UK. That is because it is one of the worst countries in Firefox market share:

Slovenia 47.9%
Finland 45.4%
Slovakia 40.4%

6 nations 35-40% ( Ireland jumped here (55% more users since last monitoring 4 months ago) and now has 38.6% share )
6 nations 30-35%
0 nations 25-30%
8 nations 20-25%
8 nations 15-20% ( UK is here with 18.7% )

http://www.xitimonitor.com/fr-fr/barometre-des-nav igateurs/firefox-juillet-2007/index-1-1-3-102.html [xitimonitor.com]

IE7 WGA? (2, Interesting)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866633)

I wonder if this has anything to do with Microsoft refusing IE7 upgrades to non-genuine Windows installations. Everyone I know who has a pirated copy of Windows (mostly self-made boxes) uses Firefox, while nearly everyone I know who has a genuine copy of Windows (mostly laptops) uses IE7.

I'm not sure why they refuse it to non-genuine users anyway. I can understand security patches, but this? No one is going to go out and buy Windows just to use IE7.

It seems everything Microsoft does to curb piracy these days hurts its monopoly.

Re:IE7 WGA? (1)

All_One_Mind (945389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866683)

All my pirat... err, I mean all my friend's pirated versions of Windows activate just fine. However, I've seen some people actually buy Windows and then get a false positive. Ha ha. WGA works great.

Re:IE7 WGA? (1)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866741)

Hmm. I don't think that applies to the general population. I know a lot of people who have pirated copies of Windows, but I don't know anyone who has bothered to apply whatever the crack is to validate as genuine. Most people really just don't care.

Re:IE7 WGA? (1)

Cythrawl (941686) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866731)

Most people who pirate Windows dont use Windows update anyway, they use Autopatcher.

Seeing that Autopatcher has ALL the security and windows updates that renders that argument null and void.

Re:IE7 WGA? (1)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866989)

Hm. I've never even heard of Autopatcher. I don't know anyone who uses it.

Interesting...

Popularity Contests (3, Interesting)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866677)

FOSS should not be obsessed with the popularity contest of userbase size. It will only come back to haunt you in the end. Like the man said, "The majority are always wrong"

Re:Popularity Contests (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866783)

Did I mean the "majority are always wrong"? I think i did.

Re:Popularity Contests (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866981)

Apache has largest market share on web server market. Are they haunted?

You have to understand the difference between propriety software and FOSS software. It is much easier to fix problems in FOSS software than it is for propriety software. That is because with FOSS, I can just fix a problem if I like to. With propriety software, I need permission from the management and a very good money-related reason to do so.

And even if Firefox would fail badly after gaining remarkable market share. At that point world's web sites would have already been fixed to work with any browser. So at that point you could really choose the browser you want to use. Firefox is changing the world for the better. It has already done a lot in the country where I live in (2nd in the Xiti monitor). We also used to have some nasty ActiveX websites, but those are history now.

Re:Popularity Contests (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19867003)

I, too, dislike popularity contests and "Linux ready for the desktop" hypes. Some see it as necessary to beat those "We don't support Linux because everybody uses Windows" ogres (computer sellers, Adobe products, web sites). The fact is, even if Linux was the only software in the world with a 100% monopoly, these same ogres would rather gouge their eyeballs out with dirty sticks than admit it anyway.

The war to simply compute in liberty rages on.

A joke that will surprise you. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19866687)

A louisiana brain deather [his name after being retarded in 'know it all' mind reading equipment that called it 'louisiana brain death'] walks into a bar...well, not really. HE DOESN'T DO SHIT ANYMORE AFTER BEING EXPOSED!

Hehe.

The figures are misleading (4, Interesting)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866689)

There are many Firefox users who select MSIE as their User Agent string in order to get sites to even allow them access, banks being one particular group that springs to mind, but I am sure that there are others. I cannot imagine that any MSIE users would need to select Firefox as the User Agent. In which case the figures will be conservative for Firefox usage and optimistic for MSIE usage. What we don't know, or at least I don't know, is how much this skews the figures.

Re:The figures are misleading (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866801)

Can you change the User-Agent in IE?

Re:The figures are misleading (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866933)

Don't know, I haven't got it.

Re:The figures are misleading (3, Insightful)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866811)

Please give it a rest. If this old argument carried some water when used with Opera, it's silly to use it with Firefox. Common sense dictates that there's far too little to gain by simply changing the UA string, and even so there are far too few people knowledgeable enough to attempt it to make a sizable difference.

Re:The figures are misleading (4, Informative)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866905)

Well changing the UA string with my UK bank's website makes the difference between 'Your browser is not supported' to a fully functioning web page which obviously doesn'trequire anything in IE to make it work. Mock all you want, I have to do this all the time - and I have just checked again to make sure that I am correct.

Re:The figures are misleading (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867157)

Sorry but I've used many bank sites (in the UK) and not had a single problem in the 4 years or so (v0.8) I've been using FF. Alright if I was in Korea then I would have to use IE (custom active X shit does encryption, not SSL/TLS like most sensible places).

but what about google (-1, Flamebait)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866723)

I am what you might call a fire fox fan boy/evangelist - I have urged everyone i know, work and non work, to download fire fox - I personally loaded fire fox on about a dozen machines at work.

And then i leardned that mozillia is in bed with the super borg, Googl$e.
I think google is evil (i've been saying this for a while, and I bet /. will catch up to me soon) and i think anyone working with them becomes tainted.
as a result of the huge cash influx from Googl$e, mozilla has been completely corrupted;i would not be at all surprised to read about 1st class air travel to "conferences" in the carribean for mozilla execs and their "companions" - thats what happens when you deal with the devil.

in other words, i no longer care about fire fox - as far as im concerned, firefox killed itself.
Is their a fork I can go to ?

I may be a majority of one - time will tell

Re:but what about google (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866787)

I don't think 1 is a majority, unless everyone else is 0. But I know why you are trying to say.....

You can download the source code for Firefox to check that it is not being naughty, you know? And you can then compile it yourself so that you can sleep at night. If not use Epiphany, Opera, Lynxs or make your own fork.

Re:but what about google (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866829)

Sorry, too many typing mistakes in my last reply: s/why/what/ s/lynxs/lynx/ . Its probably an age thing, it must be time for my cocoa and bed.

What about google anyway? (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866983)

First of all how is Google evil?

Second of all how is Mozilla tainted? Whats wrong with executives riding 1st class to a conference in the carribean?

Are you one of those people who is automatically supspicious of wealth and success and puts the poor/underdog up on a pedastal when in reality both groups consist of humans?

As for other options, there's Opera, Opera is free as in beer but not as in speech. Konquerer is open source. Since you seem to despise anything corporate you are probably running Linux already so I'm surprised you haven't heard of it yet. Making a browser requires a LOT of developer resources if you expect it to perform anywhere near decently. You may be dismayed to know that the source code for Konquerer, KHTML, is used to make Apple's Safari web browser and Apple has improved it so greatly that the KHTML guys are pretty much going to adopt Apple's changes wholesale instead of continuing with their original codebase. As Apple is a corporation that sells things for filthy evil money instead of giving things away for free this may make Konquerer unacceptable to you.

Perhaps you should try coding your own web browser? Because any other way you look at it based on your overly restrictive morals.....you're fucked.

Whee! Monopoly Exploit Time (0, Flamebait)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866737)

In some key European markets FF has already reached parity is threatening to overtake IE as the market leading browser.

Suddenly monopolies don't sound so bad. OK, how do we abuse this new power?

Re:Whee! Monopoly Exploit Time (4, Insightful)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867035)

Firefox's goal is to make the web use standards, so that you could select what browser you want to use. How many websites you have seen that work only with Firefox? And how many that work only with IE? That is they key difference.

So once Firefox has majority of the global market share, the web has already been converted to work with any browser and we (users, companies, developers, anyone except Microsoft) have won.

I'm forced to use IE 8+ hours a day (2, Insightful)

postmortem (906676) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866843)

...and pretty much most of US office workers. The Internet Explorer is corporate choice. Although I have local admin account, the "remove firefox" script runs daily. There's not much workaround it, most of corporate intranets do not work with anything but Internet Explorer - mostly because authentication issues.

So this should be taken into consideration, IE share at home might be lower than statistics show.

Re:I'm forced to use IE 8+ hours a day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19867011)

Another obstacle for corporate Firefox use is the lack of a good deployment method using MSI and Global Policies.
 
Unfortunately, it might not even make Firefox 3 because of a lack of developers. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=5434 05 [mozillazine.org]

Re:I'm forced to use IE 8+ hours a day (3, Informative)

gratemyl (1074573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867091)

Just as a tip - try PortableFirefox (http://portableapps.com/ [portableapps.com] ), it should bypass the "remove firefox" script.

If Firefox passed up IE (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866919)

the worst that would happen to MS is that they would be better protected against future antitrust cases. Web sites built using ASP.NET 2.0 work as well on Firefox as they do on IE, so it wouldn't impact the server side.

Leaving 5.7% to the other browsers.... (3, Insightful)

walter_f (889353) | more than 7 years ago | (#19866961)

...like Opera and Safari.

That makes Steve Jobs' recent presentation using a diagram with just I.E. (ca. 75%) and Safari (supposedly ca. 25%) shares shown for some time in the future an even more ridiculous event... :-)

Just to confirm these stats I checked our site (1)

vorlich (972710) | more than 7 years ago | (#19867135)

and found that IE gets 67%, FF gets 22% Opera is at 4.4% and everything else is less than 0-5% (probably our geeky staff using obscure browsers!) So I am guessing that the last time I actually looked at those stats, FF was a lot lower.

Data point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19867141)

I do information security for a medium-to-large internet company that I won't name which, whilst not exactly a security company per se, makes more than the usual token gestures towards taking security seriously.

We have finally managed to get executive approval to push Firefox as the default browser, after several years of trying, even though we still have a handful of MSIE-only apps internally. We're only a few hundred users, but I really believe that the corporate position on IE vs Firefox* is a good indicator of whether a firm really "gets it" about security.

I'm biased as I've been a Mozilla / Firefox fanboi since long before it was what some like to call "enterprise ready" :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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