I'm moving back to Opera!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.

What me?

I was being sarcastic.

I don't like IE.

Firefox is much better but I don't think it's as good as many say and I'm tired of the zealotism.

[piratePenguin]

Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.

What me?

I was being sarcastic.

I don't like IE.

Firefox is much better but I don't think it's as good as many say and I'm tired of the zealotism.

Way to fight the zealotism.

Theres none of that going on here at all thanks to you  :

Why are you calling me immature?

I'm not the one who started name calling.

I thought it was an immature response because I wasnt for a second suggesting that Firefox was the 2nd best browser because it has the 2nd highest market share, got it?

Also considering what you posted about standards, why are you considering acid 3 an iimportant standard when its supported by a few 10s of millions of users browsers perhaps, but open video is supported by firefox 3.5 which has hundreds of millions of users?

Just googled for some stats and in fact, Firefox 3.5 has more users than IE 7: it is the worlds most popular browser http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/ EDIT: better mention this is clearly according to stat counter as of that date a few weeks ago

Now, numbers dont make firefox "better". But it means fixing rendering problems that shouldnt occur throughout the web are a serious priority, and additionally it means web developers should be more likely to make sure they arent doing something wrong to break firefox support, unless theyre trying to.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I thought it was an immature response because I wasnt for a second suggesting that Firefox was the 2nd best browser because it has the 2nd highest market share, got it?

Well, you didn't make that very clear, I'm glad you've explained that.

Also considering what you posted about standards, why are you considering acid 3 an iimportant standard when its supported by a few 10s of millions of users browsers perhaps, but open video is supported by firefox 3.5 which has hundreds of millions of users?

I think the Acid3 test is important for improving standards across the Internet in general. Whether a browser passes the Acid3 isn't important to me personally, as I said before, I don't use Opera because it pawns Firefox at the Acid3 test, I use it because it's faster, gives me everything I need without a huge number of extensions.

Just googled for some stats and in fact, Firefox 3.5 has more users than IE 7: it is the worlds most popular browser http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/ EDIT: better mention this is clearly according to stat counter as of that date a few weeks ago

No doubt IE 7 usage will continue to decline and IE 8 will eventually overtake Firefox, according to that counter.

Statistics vary depending on the counter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_market_share#Summary_Table

W3Counter says IE only has 50.3% market share, last month and TheCounter says it had 68.94% - a huge difference.  The W3Counter also says IE 8 is just above Firefox and I'm not saying that it's right and the article you linked is wrong.

Now, numbers dont make firefox "better". But it means fixing rendering problems that shouldnt occur throughout the web are a serious priority, and additionally it means web developers should be more likely to make sure they arent doing something wrong to break firefox support, unless theyre trying to.

I agree.

[Refalm]

I'm really curious how all the Chrome ads will effect browser statistics.


Will they really work?
Most old people don't know what a browser is. They just click on Start, then on Internet, so they can book flights and buy lots of stupid shit on eBay.

[worker201]

Most old people don't know what a browser is. They just click on Start, then on Internet, so they can book flights and buy lots of stupid shit on eBay.

When my parents got a new computer, I deleted Outlook Express and IE while they were sleeping, and replaced them with Firefox and Thunderbird.  It took 30 seconds and a sticky note to convince them that everything was normal, and they have been Moz users for over 5 years now.

A huge percentage of browser users are corporate/office people surfing at work.  Large companies tend to have software policies in place, and most of them don't allow employees to install their own browsers.  For whatever reason, this usually means IE is the only browser available, and that probably represents 40-50% of the market.  So nobody besides IE is going to have more than 50% market penetration for quite some time.

As a matter of fact, I know an IT person at King County (Seattle/Bellevue/Redmond) who thinks Firefox is a toy that only people who hate Windows would want to play with.  I suspect that's actually a common sentiment with enterprise IT people, whose goal is to have as few pieces of software in their systems as possible.  They probably have no idea why Firefox is better, and don't want to - it's just another part of a system that could break at any time.  Staying with IE is theoretically simpler, and therefore better.  Us home users can switch browsers every hour or so without any adverse effects, and we can pick and choose components to customize our experience.

Metcalfe's Law states that the computing power of a network is equivalent to the square of the number of nodes on the network.  Well, enterprise IT difficulties are more like the cube of the number of nodes in the office.  These fuckers are basically lazy, and they want one OS, one browser, one mail client, and one word processor - all made by the same company, if possible.  So guess who wins?

[worker201]

...I use [Opera] because it's faster, gives me everything I need without a huge number of extensions.

Finally, the truth comes out.  You like Opera because its subset of functions matches perfectly with your desired subset of functions.  That's fine, best of luck.  Now you just need to learn that desiring a different subset of functions does not make other users zealots or fanboys.

[Refalm]

Metcalfe's Law states that the computing power of a network is equivalent to the square of the number of nodes on the network.  Well, enterprise IT difficulties are more like the cube of the number of nodes in the office.  These fuckers are basically lazy, and they want one OS, one browser, one mail client, and one word processor - all made by the same company, if possible.  So guess who wins?

I can understand the logic, although the new batch of IT networking specialists are less ignorant, and battle whether Firefox, Opera or Chrome is better.
However, less applications means less pressure for the Servicedesk department, and eventually the whole IT department. That's why Internet Explorer should be removed, and Firefox installed instead. It's better, since upgrades to newer versions aren't forced down your throat like Microsoft has done with IE 6 --> IE 7 (which screwed up some specialised intranet applications).

[Aloone_Jonez]

A huge percentage of browser users are corporate/office people surfing at work.  Large companies tend to have software policies in place, and most of them don't allow employees to install their own browsers.  For whatever reason, this usually means IE is the only browser available, and that probably represents 40-50% of the market.  So nobody besides IE is going to have more than 50% market penetration for quite some time.

I agree with the policy of not allowing people to install what browser they like on their computers because one browser means lower support costs and has the added advantage of only requiring them to make their corporate Intranet comparable with one browser. The reason why many use IE is because it's what they've always done and it might be difficult to change because the Intranet site only works with IE. They used to block Firefox where I used to work, until I noticed them installing it on sme PCs because some other software depended on it, I don't know why maybe it needed the rendering engine? Even then Firfox wasn't the default browser and the company Intranet didn't work very well in Firefox.

I myself would choose a different browser such as Firefox or Safari for obvious reasons.

I installed Firefox and OpenOffice.org on my works computer. I only really needed OOo to work on college work but I thought I'd install Firefox to make the Internet easier to use. I knew I was risking a disciplinary but nothing bad happened even though someone from IT noticed.

Finally, the truth comes out.  You like Opera because its subset of functions matches perfectly with your desired subset of functions. That's fine, best of luck. 

You need to read more thoroughly: I said that along time ago.

Hell it's personal preference for the most part, I can understand why people use Firefox

Now you just need to learn that desiring a different subset of functions does not make other users zealots or fanboys.

No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.

[piratePenguin]

No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.

Please tell us who is attacking because you criticized their favorite browser?

I think the browser world is changing and this decade internet explorer will be dethroned. If you look at the graphs firefox is getting bigger and bigger, but there are many more alternatives now too. I dont care if firefox/chrome/opera/IE have equalish shares of 80% market share in 2020 or firefox has 80% share by itself. But the only browser I would put in that top spot is Firefox to be sure due to its more open nature that is better inline with the philosophies of the web, and with fewer vested interests.

Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.

All the while there has been Opera, a really great browser compared to IE but all it did is hang in ther with 1-2% market share (or whatever) tweaking their software as if that was the problem. Firefox changed the world meanwhile. How? Because, excuse the pun, Firefox CONNECTED. And its still making the most of its world-changing community.

Good for Google that theyre trying something different and getting Chromes name out there. Opera proved that sitting watching people download firefox, doesnt gain opera market share. lol

[Aloone_Jonez]

No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.

Please tell us who is attacking because you criticized their favorite browser?

I don't want to fan the flames so I'll let it drop.

I think the browser world is changing and this decade internet explorer will be dethroned. If you look at the graphs firefox is getting bigger and bigger, but there are many more alternatives now too. I dont care if firefox/chrome/opera/IE have equalish shares of 80% market share in 2020 or firefox has 80% share by itself. But the only browser I would put in that top spot is Firefox to be sure due to its more open nature that is better inline with the philosophies of the web, and with fewer vested interests.

I'd rather have a couple of browsers with roughly equal market share.

Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.

How can Firefox really be considered as FOSS?

The binaries which are allowed to bear the trademark are proprietary, only the versions complied from source are really free i.e Swiftfox.

All the while there has been Opera, a really great browser compared to IE but all it did is hang in ther with 1-2% market share (or whatever) tweaking their software as if that was the problem. Firefox changed the world meanwhile. How? Because, excuse the pun, Firefox CONNECTED. And its still making the most of its world-changing community.

That's right one of the main reasons for Firefox being successful is down to very clever marketing, as well as being better than IE. The license has also benefited Firefox because it's compatible with most Linux distributions.

Opera hasn't been anywhere near as good at marketing and their choice of  licensing model hasn't done them any favours either. First of all Opera was payware, then they realised that people had stopped buying it - the idea of paying for a browser had gone out of fashion. Their solution was to make it adware, not the malicious type, all it did was display small adverts in a bar below the address bar. People found the adverts annoying so they decided to make it freeware. Note that this only applies to their PC browser: the phone version is still payware and the EULA of the free version prohibits installation on phones.

Opera could probably double their market share overnight, just my open sourcing it but they'll need to find another business model as they'll no longer be able to sell their software for use on phones.

Good for Google that theyre trying something different and getting Chromes name out there.

Have you tried Chromium?

It's the FOSS version Google Chrome which much better and it supports extensions like Firefox. The only criticism I had was of the Adblock but if you don't use it, it won't matter.

[worker201]

Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.

How can Firefox really be considered as FOSS?

He didn't say it was open source, he said it was open.  Which is enough of a difference to make your question spurious at best.  The mere fact that I've seen the source code for Firefox means that it is open enough, even if it's not as redistributable as GPL stuff.

[piratePenguin]

Theres a lot of interesting stuff happening to it too, ie Mozilla Labs: Weave (syncing different Firefoxes and mobile Firefoxes), Jetpack (web-page format extensions, yeah click an "install" button and the extension will appear without restarting), Personas (I don't particularly fancy this feature but you have to see the appeal lots of users see, if they can simply do this and create a top-class (HUGE) website of community created themes, why not?). Soon these things and more will be a part of Firefox (all in Firefox 4 2011, Personas in Firefox 3.6 coming soon, rest can use beta-level extensions for now).

I just installed the Firefox 3.6 RC and I have to say. Personas are an AMAZING feature. I didnt think id take a fancy for this feature, but people will fall in love with this.

Also I've just looked at Jetpack. Its goal is to change how Firefox extensions work, so that extending firefox is something that anyone who can add a link to a webpage can add a button to firefox. So that its simpler and so that the concept reaches out to everyone who knows basic html and javascript. If you have a clue of javascript, and youve time to spare, I recommend installing jetpack and taking the tutorial. Fucking killer.


Heres a sample jetpack extension:

jetpack.future.import("menu");

jetpack.menu.context.page.on("img").add(function(target)({
  label: "Edit Image",
  icon: "http://pixlr.com/favicon.ico",
  command: function(){
    $.get("http://developer.pixlr.com/_script/pixlr_minified.js", function(js){
      var doc = target.document;
      var win = target.window;
 
      var script = doc.createElement("script");
      script.innerHTML = js;
      doc.body.appendChild( script );
 
      win.wrappedJSObject.pixlr.overlay.show({
        image: target.node.src,
        title: "Edited Image"
      });
    });
  }
}));

Do you know what this does? It adds a menu item to the context menu for images "Edit Image". If you click Edit Image, the image is posted to an online image editor. Just that code. Nice. Nice.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I didn't know that Firefox did not have skins, Opera has had that for years, Chrome has had that feature since day one and even IE has been skinable sine 6 but it wasn't easy to use. No doubt that skins, oh sorry Personas, have been added to compete with Chrome.

I don't know any Java and only a tiny bit of html so Jetpack won't me much use to me. It sounds like one of those wonderful geeky tools that's brilliant for programmers. Does it pose a potential security vulnerability though?

What about security? Are there any plans to do as Chrome does and load every tab as a separate process so one page crashing doesn't take the whole browser down?

[piratePenguin]

[chromium]

It's faster than Firefox apart from on some ad-infested pages which take slightly longer to load the elements then hide them and it seems to do a better job at loading IE-only sites. Best of all it's open source which will keep the FOSS fanboyz happy.

I've come to the conclusion that WebKit>Gecko, it just seems lighter, faster and the fact that most WebKit browsers pass the Acid3 test seems to suggest better standards compliance too.

I love webkit. I was developing a poker heads up display that used webkit for rendering the hud (since im a web nerd, and since people like to customise their huds, and since using web technologies for this task is so sweet), and it could do some extremely sexy things for me combined with Qt. It's plenty light for the job for sure, and I wouldnt use gecko for the same task, given the option of webkit.

But I also love gecko. I use it almost every day on my eee pc to browse all over the web and it works like a charm. Now, using firefox 3.6 and catching up with new web technologies (because I wasnt up to dat eprobably since the last time i had an involved discussion here about it), I've got to call you up on your standards support remarks.

Firefox has excellent support for html 5 video, while no other browser has any to my knowledge (unfortunately I know nothig about Chrome in particular). It also supports offline storage, downloadable fonts (does opera? please screenshot http://www.alistapart.com/d/cssatten/poen.html it should have dotted font for 'css' 'zen' and 'garden'. I think I did this test before and opera passed, but i dont know for sure ), web workers, async javascript scripts (as of 3.6), ..

these features are big strides forward for the web. Particularly open video, because the web has developed a huge dependence on Adobe Flash for this feature, and if you have the faintest idea of what the webs purpose is you know sombody needs to take back the web.

I dont think referring to an acid test for obscure futuristic css properties is a smart way to compare standards compliance: it is for those specific standards, but thats all. I get 94/100 in acid 3 on FF 3.6, but what is firefox missing? There are particular things that might take a long time to sort out so that FF perfectly meets the specification, its a rigorous bitch of a thing to implement and I'm pretty sure noone intended for it to be implemented over night, but supporting the important bits such as gradients is necessary, and firefox supports all the major new parts of css that I understand. If you can aactually shed some light on the meaning behind 94/100, please tell me what features Firefox is lacking?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Opera does support downloadable fonts otherwise it would fail the Acid3 test.

It doesn't render the page you linked correctly though, the text at the bottom is horribly fucked up.

Chromium does which is surprising because I thought it didn't support downloadable fonts due to a perceived security risk. I think that applies to Chrome and Chromium is more bleeding edge but is probably less stable.

What's a hud?