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!

IE Dropping, Now Near 70% In Europe

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the ascendent-fox dept.

Mozilla 184

Kevin Spiritus lets us know that XiTi Monitor, a French Web survey institute, has published its browser barometer for July, and Internet Explorer continues to lose ground. "The ascension of Firefox continues... Nearly 28% average use rate in Europe in the beginning of July 2007, with a progression in the totality of the 32 European countries studied. Firefox doesn't loose ground in any of the countries."

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

How is this not a dupe? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19913997)

Putting the same story in the related stories box does not un-dupe this news.

Re:How is this not a dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914071)

How about calling it a super dupe? Because last week was Firefox Now Serious Threat to IE in Europe [slashdot.org] which cites the same study.

If this story is a 'super dupe,' that would make kdawson a super duper guy.

Re:How is this not a dupe? (5, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914081)

No, no, the story that was posted earlier this week was about this study. This story is the study. Even though they have the exact same data, they're entirely different: This one has graphs!

Re:How is this not a dupe? (0, Redundant)

somegeekynick (1011759) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914973)

This one has graphs!
You mean like this [slashdot.org] ?

Wow, is Mozilla going to "stay the course"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914411)

Well, it seems that Firefox only has a 28% approval rating. Guess who else only has (at most) a 28% approval rating? GWB!!!

George W Bush = Firefox.

Stay the course, guys. Victory against Microsoft is just around the corner.

Re:How is this not a dupe? (5, Funny)

The_DoubleU (603071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914547)

This is not a dupe.
The previous story was about Firefox gaining market share.
This story is about IE "loosing" ground.

Completely different.

Re:How is this not a dupe? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914873)

IE looses the ground to bury FF in?

It doesn't loose any ground? (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914009)

Damn pheonixes, not doing the digging I paid them to do!

Re:It doesn't loose any ground? (5, Funny)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914147)

Nono, I think they mean to say that Firefox doesn't fight dirty and throw dirt (loose ground) at the opponents.

Re:It doesn't loose any ground? (1)

n0rr1s (768407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914993)

Hehe.

But if you're going to make fun of spelling (something that I wholeheartedly encourage), it helps to check your own.

Phoenixes.

Re:It doesn't loose any ground? (1)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915635)

Pheonixes? Is that like phonics? Or did you mean phoenixes?

Any more data? (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914031)

Is there any more data on how browser usage breaks down by country worldwide, or by other demographics?

Pound it into our heads why don't ya? (4, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914035)

Yeah, we know [slashdot.org] . From that blurb:

"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."

From the current blurb:

Kevin Spiritus lets us know that XiTi Monitor, a French Web survey institute, has published its browser barometer for July, and Internet Explorer continues to lose ground. "The ascension of Firefox continues... Nearly 28% average use rate in Europe in the beginning of July 2007, with a progression in the totality of the 32 European countries studied. Firefox doesn't loose ground in any of the countries."

I realize we have the Firehose now but are people who read Slashdot daily using it properly? We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.

Re:Pound it into our heads why don't ya? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914131)

I realize we have the Firehose now but are people who read Slashdot daily using it properly? We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.


And exactly how did you get a 4-digit UID? ;)

Re:Pound it into our heads why don't ya? (2, Funny)

UglyTool (768385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915395)

I realize we have the Firehose now but are people who read Slashdot daily using it properly? We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.

And exactly how did you get a 4-digit UID? ;)

eBay. Same place I got mine.

Note to editors (0)

greenguy (162630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914039)

The convention with statistics is to say "near" when rounding up, not down. A more common way of expressing 72% in round figures would be "fewer than 3 in 4" or simply "fewer than 75% of Europeans."

Re:Note to editors (4, Informative)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914221)

You're correct but so are they. IE is only at 66.5%, remember there are other browsers besides IE and Firefox!

Methodology (5, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914063)

From TFA:

Methodology: Firefox's use rate corresponds to the totality of Firefox visits during the period in relation to the entirety of visits, all browsers taken together.
They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.

Re:Methodology (2, Interesting)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914139)

They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.


I don't think they're meaningless. Inaccurate maybe. I can see how users of Firefox would visit certain sites more often than users of other browsers, and that could skew the numbers.

Re:Methodology (2, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914215)

Such as slashdot.org, linux.org, and sailormoonanime.com?

Re:Methodology (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915333)

From TFA:

Methodology: Firefox's use rate corresponds to the totality of Firefox visits during the period in relation to the entirety of visits, all browsers taken together.
They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.
From TFA: "Perimeter of 95,827 websites".

Re:Methodology (1)

jorgevillalobos (1044924) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915579)

Here's a post that partly explains the methodology followed to come up with this numbers: http://standblog.org/blog/post/2007/07/17/Firefox- market-share-update [standblog.org] . Excerpt:

I have met with the Xiti team a few months ago to get a better understanding of what they measure. Basically, they have what they call markers (actually small images) on literally millions of Websites, mostly in Western Europe. This means they get billions of hits every month, and then analyse which browser engine were used to display these images.

Re:Methodology (1)

ShinmaWa (449201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915845)

Basically, they have what they call markers (actually small images) on literally millions of Websites
What they call "markers", the rest of the world calls web bugs [eff.org] .

A lot of personal proxies (such as Privoxy) filter out crap like this. The kind of user that would use a product like Privoxy is also the kind of user that would tend to use Firefox. Makes me wonder if the Firefox numbers might not actually be a little higher overall.

I'm Loosing My Mind! (2, Funny)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914073)

/. needs to put the grammar nazis to better use.

firefox getting bloated (0, Troll)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914085)

i was one of the first people in my university to use firefox a few years ago, since then i seen a steady rise of people using it but since last march the trend reversed, for example myself went back to IE7 because the fonts look alot nicer on my laptop and memory usage is very important for me, 4 tabs open in IE7 and firefox + both minimised > ie7 using 4MB! firefox is using 60MB! wtf? and dont get me started on the google toolbar.. i see people going back to IE7 now or opera anyways since this is /. i prob will be modded down, but oh well, this is the truth and i hope mozilla do something about performance (and no rooting around configuration options is not cool) as i like firefox and use it for development and testing

Re:firefox getting bloated (3, Insightful)

Horn (517263) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914149)

If you care that much about 60 megs of ram for an app that you're using, its time to get more ram.

Re:firefox getting bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914685)

I think he meant that web pages are getting more bloated, not firefox. :-)

Re:firefox getting bloated (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914189)

, 4 tabs open in IE7 and firefox + both minimised > ie7 using 4MB! firefox is using 60MB! wtf?


The about:config setting you're looking for is config.trim_on_minimize. Set this true.

Re:firefox getting bloated (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914663)

The about:config setting you're looking for is config.trim_on_minimize. Set this true.
I think this raises a point, though, in relation to browser share. The majority of users do not want to have to tweak anything. If they need to change Firefox configs in order to match performance under IE7, most would instead go back to IE7.[1]

Personally, I don't think browser share is the ultimate measure of how good a browser Firefox is. The only reason why I think it's important that FF and other browsers eat away at the IE7 share is so that more websites are developed according to standards.

[1] This is amusing, to me. The not-wanting-to-have-to-tweak-anything mentality used to be associated with Apple, not PCs (yes, more on the hardware side, but still). Now it's associated with MS products.

Re:firefox getting bloated (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914855)

I think this raises a point, though, in relation to browser share. The majority of users do not want to have to tweak anything. If they need to change Firefox configs in order to match performance under IE7, most would instead go back to IE7.[1]


As far as that goes, any software developer knows that when it comes to performance, you can maximize for size or speed, but not both. In this case, FF chose to optimize for speed, rather than size, but left a config option for those who would rather they had taken the opposite stance. I see no problem with this, given that memory is cheap (and getting cheaper). Anyone worried about a browser taking 60MB of RAM doesn't have enough memory; however, if they can't afford more memory for whatever reason, they still can decide to reduce FF's minimized size in memory.

Re:firefox getting bloated (2, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914273)

Font appearance is a personal taste issue, although I cant tell the difference. How are you measuring RAM usage? Because it isn't the amount of RAM in the task manager you want to worry about. What you need to find out is what do the applications do when the system is low on resources. If firefox is a good little application and surrenders that RAM when the system needs it, then it doesn't matter if it is 'using' it at other times.

What the Hell? (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914385)

...but since last march the trend reversed

Maybe you really aren't a Microsoft shill, but you sure sound like one.

4 tabs open in IE7 and firefox + both minimised > ie7 using 4MB! firefox is using 60MB! wtf?

This is a logical fallacy of some crazy kind. Is IE a standalone application that's reporting its *actual* memory use? Very doubtful.

How about the dog-slowedness of rendering in IE7? Wait. don't tell me it's rocket-fast for you right?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ie7+slow&ie=utf-8&o e=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client =firefox-a [google.com]

Re:firefox getting bloated (1)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914401)

For the low, low price of just $38.99 [newegg.com] I can solve all of your browser problems.

Lose vs Loose (4, Informative)

athloi (1075845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914091)

loose ground

This is a hard one for non-native English speakers, because "lose" is pronounced so bizarrely it sounds like it needs two Os. However, "loose" is how we describe poor security, and "lose" is what happens when I try to play one of these newfangled video games. FYI, FWIW.

Re:Lose vs Loose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914183)

i don't know how poor security would apply to my friend's mum who sleeps around but she is pretty loose.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914467)

It probably applies to your friend's dad's chastity belt supplier

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914259)

I just tried pronouncing these myself:

Lose sounds like 'Luuze' while

Loose sounds like 'Luce'.

Weird.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915133)

Lose sounds like 'Luuze' while

Loose sounds like 'Luce'.


It seems to me that "Loose" sounds like "Loose"—if you take most words in English that end with "-oose" as a guide, e.g., "moose", "goose", or "caboose".

OTOH, "lose" sounds like "Loose"—if you take "choose" as a model of how the "-oose" should sound.

I think the better statement is that "English spelling is only loosely connected to pronunciation".

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915469)

Well, you can consider other words where S sounds like Z.

For "hose" which is frequently mispronounced "Ho's" but is apparently pronounced "Who's".

Hmmm. Or not.

Hose
Nose - When at the landfill, no nose is good news.

Lose

English makes no sense.

I'm oppoosed to loose myself but I recall that Mark Twain "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

My preference iz that wee wud fix speling to match sound and reemoove al ov the excepshions.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914265)

This is a hard one for non-native English speakers


And a lot of native speakers as well.

Personally I don't understand that, since I read books a lot and am an excellent speller.

Just to help you remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914359)

The word loose can be used to describe one's butthole after having practiced anal intercourse.

Before:
(__x__) (this is a tight butthole)

After:
(__O__) (this is a loose butthole)

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914469)

Pose
Nose
Dose
Hose
Rose
Lose

Yup... something's off.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914869)

Gotta love english, dose doesn't fit either fwiw.
Doze is pronounced the same as pose, nose etc.
Dose is pronounced like close, but only if you mean close as in near. Close as in 'close up shop' is like doze.

What a mess ;)

English isn't so much a set of rules as it is a set of exceptions.

My biggest english hangup is with archive...having been taught phonetically I always say ar-CHive, like 'chive', when it should be pronounced as arkive. I know this, I always think this when I say it, but it always comes out like chive.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915335)

I personally tripped (many years ago) on schedule. (get it? Tripped on schedule.)

Anyway: I was taught: Chedoole, but in youessay, you have to say skeduel. (youessay == USA)

pps: is USA jarjar-talk? I shudder...

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915861)

Allow me to translate into non-baby-talk.

In English English (the Queen's, I guess), they say the word "schedule" as shed-jule.
In American English (or the highway, bitches), we say the same word as sked-jule.

It's not enough of a difference to make the word difficult to understand in everyday speech, but just enough difference to make everyone in earshot of the "foreign" way giggle when they hear it. Especially us "dumb" Americans, since we like to make fun of anything that sounds different (including each other, and anyone from Boston, the "deep south", or Minnesota can vouch for this).

Re:Lose vs Loose (4, Funny)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914629)

This is a hard one for non-native English speakers, because "lose" is pronounced so bizarrely it sounds like it needs two Os.

i think "lose" should be spelled with two O's and a Z just like it sounds... like booze.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914661)

While I am technically a non-native speaker being an Indian (Disclaimer: I did not derkejeeerrbs), english was the first language I learnt. I have noticed that people who speak british english tend to accept anomalies in english more than american english speakers. To be honest, I never thought of how strange the pronunciation of 'lose' was until I tried to find more examples and all I could think of was words like rose,hose,dose,chose etc... It is indeed an odd pronunciation, but it never seemed strange. Maybe it is because we are used to spelling words weirdly since there has not been a comparable effort to have pronunciations and spellings correspond in BE like there has been in AE. In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves in english is that I squirm every time I see 'floatation'. I know it is a valid spelling of the word and that it makes logical sense, but 'flotation' just seems more natural to me (this spelling is correct as well). 'Aluminum' bothers me too (both the pronunciation and the spelling). The spelling makes me uncomfortable because it seems 'too short'.

As an aside, A friend of mine who has a real problem with spelling once asked me how to spell 'pose' and I convinced him it was 'poas' although he doubted me at first. Luckily for me, I told him that 'pose' was pronounced 'poose' and meant something entirely different from 'poas' and that the latter usage was British which is why spell-check complained about it.

May be "poor security to you..." (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914711)

....but to me "loose" is an easy girl!

Re:May be "poor security to you..." (1)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915517)

That means she has poor security and lets anything in.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914751)

That's great, but Slashdot is an Engligh-speaking web site geared towards Americans.

Even still Slashdot supposedly has "Editors" (I think at this point they're just some lazy guys who are cruising on the dot-bomb money they made and couldn't give a shit about Slashdot). The job of an editor is to fix grammar mistakes, and even improve readability of the text they are supposed to be reviewing. To have constant typos and errors in the headline of a very widely read website is unacceptable. But then, Sourceforge Inc. (previously OSDN, VA Linux, etc.) is a pretty badly run company (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=LNUX&annual) that is only in the black because they're selling off pieces of their business that they have already run into the ground.

Re:Lose vs Loose (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914905)

This is a hard one for non-native English speakers

I've given up on worrying about what non-native speakers do to English. Over the years of knowing many non-native speakers, I've figured out the ways in which English makes no sense to them, and the way in which they make odd-sounding conjugations etc are perfectly reasonable in terms of how their own language works and how they were taught English (mostly). They're usually following a perfectly reasonable rule -- as a friend points out, his English is way better than my Vietnamese. :-P

Trying to explain or account for all of the bizarre exceptions and oddities in English gets pointless after a while. Once you get over that, it's far easier to actually communicate with them and get on with it. The oddities don't seem quite so jarring, and, sometimes sound rather cool and expressive in ways we wouldn't expect; sometimes they'll express something in a way which, while completely grammatically incorrect, couldn't be expressed as well in 'proper' English.

(As a matter of fact, you can get some insight into their sentence structure by listening to how they don't quite get ours correct, which makes it easier to follow some of the odder constructs. These are usually driven by the more arcane rules of English which I never had to consciously think about growing up but which are almost impossible to explain.)

Now, the native speakers, however, still get held accountable for how badly they speak/write it. There's an awful lot of native speakers who can't use English, and that's far less forgivable than someone who is on their second (third, fourth, whatever) language.

Cheers

Europe (5, Funny)

smith6174 (986645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914101)

In Europe people are smarter and do things better. Deal with it.

Re:Europe (2, Funny)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914281)

Smarter than everyone else or just smarter than Americans? Because if it's the latter it'd be a lot like debating on the internet.

Re:Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914621)

In America, lose and loose are 2 different words.

Re:Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914645)

Truly, the heart of human of science, knowledge, and colonialism. No nation of mud-people produces people of caliber equal to or greater than Europe does.

Actually, TFA says IE is UNDER 70% (1)

phozz bare (720522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914109)

Apparently the most important detail was missed in the summary.

..and what does "loose ground" mean, anyway? Some kind of freak geological phenomenon?

Re:Actually, TFA says IE is UNDER 70% (1)

pagaboy (1029878) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914163)

It should read "Firefox doesn't loosen ground". It was put in the article to stop anyone confusing a web browser with a spade. Simple typo.

Breaking Internet Explorer news (1)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914113)

I wouldn't touch this with a 10ft nigger cock.

Dupe (1)

RedShoeRider (658314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914117)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/15/124020 4 [slashdot.org] C'mon. Firefox handily beating up on IE is one of those tidbits that most of us store in the back of our brains. You'd think that the editors would keep a nugget like that in their brain as well, and when they see this 4 days later they'd think "Gee, I remember reading something like that". Maybe they thought they saw it on Digg.

May I be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914121)

GOODBYE to our erstwhile Exploring overlord?

Another poor dupe (3, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914135)

1. This story is a dupe
2. Yay firefox... but honestly is it all that important? How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better? Now that's a conversation actually worth having, but it might involve thinking instead of rabid fanboyism & MS hatred, so don't expect to see it on Slashdot.
3. For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!

Re:Another poor dupe (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915451)

Heh, I've started to tire over the percentage statistics myself but after seeing this headline I feel a bit better. Just yesterday my company had an issue with accessing some vendor's website for various things - it just stopped working after they updated stuff. Turns out whatever update they did broke support in Firefox. They then state that they cannot be bothered to handle web browsers such as Firefox, and that we should use Internet Explorer or Safari.

Safari? I'm not watching the internet stats like a hawk but when has Safari ever broken the 5% barrier!? Every gain may force sites to support firefox. The more support for Firefox, the more pressure on Microsoft to actually fix IE and support standards.

Re:Another poor dupe (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915743)

How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better?

The only solution would be some sort magical free CPU cycles over-unity processor. Steorn is working on it.

For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!

Your evil :(

loose any ground (2, Funny)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914179)

So then, is Firefox the name of a new roto-tiller? I'm confused.

To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914181)

Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.

Re:To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914289)

Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.
Dude, don't hassle the Hoff, okay?

Re:To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914365)

Don't Jew the Ler, either!

Switching is fun.

I'm going to play with my Prune Face and Dick Tracy figurines.

"I'm Dick Tracy, take that Prune Face!"
"Now I'm Prune Face, take that Dick Tracy!"
"Now I'm Prune Tracy, take that Dick..."

Re:To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915155)

Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.
Dude, don't hassle the Hoff, okay?
Only if he stops singing. And take back the Beckams while you're at it.

Re:To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915641)

Only if he stops singing. And take back the Beckams while you're at it.

Not a fucking chance mate, cheers!

Re:To be fair, the Europeans do have rotten taste (1)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915427)

Dude, Michael Bolton? Carrot Top? You septics don't even know what taste *is*.

continuing trend (1)

dcskier (1039688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914185)

It's great to have the actual numbers but I don't find this too surprising given that linux adoption rates are also higher in Europe and Asia than here in Amurika. The whole open source and country independent software movement culturally fits better with left leaning Europe. I'd only think this trend would continue with Firefox as well as other open source alternatives in Europe.

Loose ground (1)

kbolino (920292) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914201)

Well, I hope Firefox doesn't loose too much ground. It gets nasty when the mud starts flying.

Re:Loose ground (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914593)

I wish people would RTFA. It states that Firefox didn't lose ground but IE did. and I hope to god that you are really referring to IE with the nastiness. In fact Firefox, between March's dates and July's dates has gained 3.7%. I don't mean to be hating on anyone, but please, for god-sake, RTFA and make sure you get your facts right.

Re:Loose ground (1)

dm0527 (975468) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914885)

Well, I hope Firefox doesn't loose too much ground. It gets nasty when the mud starts flying.
I wish people would RTFA. It states that Firefox didn't lose ground but IE did. and I hope to god that you are really referring to IE with the nastiness. In fact Firefox, between March's dates and July's dates has gained 3.7%. I don't mean to be hating on anyone, but please, for god-sake, RTFA and make sure you get your facts right.

Uh...reread parent and think to yourself what he or she was trying to say. "loose" ground...mud... (hint: look up the definition of "loose"). Perhaps you should understand the intent of a post prior to verbally jumping up and down on it.

ARRRRRGHI!!! It's L-O-S-E not L-O-O-S-E!!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914219)

I learnt this in grade school.

No, I'm not a native English speaker.

 

It is to be expected (1)

Temposs (787432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914227)

One key to this trend is to note that Microsoft is not natively European. This means that Microsoft will naturally have less control over there than they do in the US. There is also less brand loyalty to a company based in the US as the reputation of the US takes a dive. I'm not sure, but it seems like a good portion of the world population internationally would like to stick it to the US any way they can, and sticking it to Microsoft could be seen as one way to accomplish that.

Since Mozilla is open source, it will have less of this perception of being bound to one country or another.

Deja Vu all over again... (0, Redundant)

nweaver (113078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914237)

And here I thought it was Sunday the 15th [slashdot.org] .

Come on ./ editors. The dupes are getting really annoying.

Re:Deja Vu all over again... (3, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914309)

Come on ./ editors. The dupes are getting really annoying.
Yeah, for the past ten years they've been fine, but just this week it's started to piss me off too.

Time to switch browser, for security purposes (0, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914241)

Don't get me wrong, I love FF. This message (and all my previous ones) was written using FF. Still, with this trend I'll have to move away from it. Sadly, unhappily, but necessarily.

The reason is simple: Security. Yes, the security holes of FF aren't as blatant as those in IE (who ins his sane mind ties a browser with complete ActiveX support? I mean, be sensible!), but they exist and behold, they get used now. It's no longer "just a POC", FF exploits are becoming more and more important in malware business, especially since the advent of MPack and similar malware spreading suits.

It's not the best kind of security, trying to be secure from malware by using software that is uninteresting for untargeted malware spraying, because few people use it. But, well, it's one that at least kinda works against the everyday threats.

The question is, where to?

Re:Time to switch browser, for security purposes (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914757)

Just load NoScript, Adblock, and Flashblock and be on your way.

Re:Time to switch browser, for security purposes (2, Informative)

TihSon (1065170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915073)

Konqueror.

loose != lose (0, Redundant)

PhotoGuy (189467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914255)

Come on editors, this is grade 3 stuff.

loose = adjective; "It is loose, like sleeve of wizard"
lose = verb; opposite of win/gain. "My sister wished she didn't lose her virginity to Bilo"

Re:loose != lose (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914425)

Yeah, too bad that's not exactly right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loose [reference.com]

A small sample:

verb (used with object)
20. to let loose; free from bonds or restraint.
21. to release, as from constraint, obligation, or penalty.

Over-generalising isn't going to help them remember. It'll only confuse them more when they encounter a less common usage, and think they've got it backwards again.

FF at 63% for Windows power users (1)

Eric Pierce (636318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914337)

I show FF users at ~63% for a website I maintain for a OSS/Windows power user app.

http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/website_stats.php [sourceforge.net]

EP

Re:FF at 63% for Windows power users (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914587)

Yes, a similar figure at http://www.phonewebcam.com/ [phonewebcam.com] but with that being (obviously) geared to cellphone users you'll start to see mobile browser market share eat into these figures too.

Re:FF at 63% for Windows power users (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914701)

when i had my site up (earlier this year) i recieved 49% Firefox, 47% IE, and what left left for Safari and Konqueror.

Re:FF at 63% for Windows power users (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915465)

My site shows FF at around 27% and various versions of IE at around 65% which is a definite change from a year or so ago when FF was hovering at around 12%

BBspot (2, Informative)

MrMonty (366322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914345)

What, no link to the pertinent article [bbspot.com] on BBspot?

numbers (1)

Ryan Monster (767204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914551)

Is this statistic from the same people who calculated the European HD-DVD market share?

But Spooz Toolz is up 170% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19914681)

Ok, ok, we get it (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914765)

As much as like that firefox's share is increasing (CSS rendering...), we get it! How slow is this news day? Enough! + or - one two percents, who cares.

And? (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 7 years ago | (#19914999)

Firefox doesn't loose ground in any of the countries."

Why should it?

The ascension of firefox vulnerabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19915225)

Continues at a rapid pace as well. It seems everytime I run it lately its downloading an update for something.

Stop Bickering, Stop Posting (1)

goldglovecb (1073366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915261)

To me, as a web engineer in the BI-industry, I get really tired of these browser stories in general. I especially grow tired of Firefox vs. IE stories. Not only are they often presented out of context, but they glamorize a one browser over another. When I read these stories, it almost always seems slanted towards Firefox promotion. For example, if you rearrange the headline to say "Firefox up to 28% market share", the gains it makes don't seem as impressive as the loss IE takes, if it is even accurate. That aside, who really cares what browser others use? Web developers. So, to the development community, what is the "stuff that matters" and what is just childish bickering? FF market share doesn't alleviate the fact developers still have to deal with the inconsistencies between browsers. Even if FF had 90% of the market, we'd still have to accomodate te other 10%. Believing 100% FF adoption is possible to alleviate these burdens by posting slanted stories is naive.

I would much rather see stories about progress towards a standard browser engine, something that will display code the same way no matter which browser you use. Let non-critical user features fuel the browser war. I won't hold my breath for that, but in the meantime it'd be nice to see these trivial (at least to me) stories drop off.

Follow your own advice (1)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915841)

Firefox's market share may be of primary interest to web developers, but it's also relevant to the general OSS and Mac user communities as well.

Why? Because IE isn't just another browser. It's a Windows-only browser with proprietary features (ActiveX, etc.) that promotes lock-in. So lots of people care about IE's market share, and lots of people, for all sorts of selfish resons, want IE to fail.

Don't like it? Fine, follow your own advice and STFU already.

On the topic of Crapware... (1)

john g the 4th (1040350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915391)

Reading the post, I noticed a contradiction... "no crapware" and "it comes with Windows Vista Basic Home"

Issues of popularity and minority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19915637)

Europe. Popularity. Anyone remember the Amiga?

Why isn't the headline "Firefox rising"? (1)

turly (992736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19915903)

Just wondering...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?