Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox Reviewed in the Globe and Mail 615

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the more-press-is-good-press dept.
Eric Giguere writes "Today's Globe and Mail has a Firefox review titled A bug-free surfing zone in its Friday review section. Slashdot readers probably won't like the last phrase, though: 'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Reviewed in the Globe and Mail

Comments Filter:
  • by Emugamer (143719) * on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:48PM (#11373847) Homepage Journal

    "Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs. These features are part of the reason IE is so riddled with malware, but they also allow it to interact with certain websites."


    Perhaps these websites should move from building apps with ActiveX? just a thought :p
    • Doesn't ActiveX only run under Windows? (Or did I miss yet another meeting?) That's OS where it's all but impossible to delete IE, right? Rendering the whole point about keeping IE around kind of moot.
    • Firefox is version 1 while IE is version 6, they are 5 versions apart (in IE's terms though ;)). So given the time IE had for development, FF would go places.
      • Right, but version numbers are really just marketing schemes in commercial products anyway. In the commercial world 1.0 means "good enough to sell," whereas in the Free/OSS world, it means that it's feature complete, stable, etc.

        I do think that IE has had enough rewrites to have changed version numbers a few times... but they really should be calling it 5.x at this point though.

        But then again, they're not even shipping standalone versions of IE though, since it's supposedly an "integrated" part of Window
        • Yeah, IIRC, there was no version 1...

          2.0 - MS branded spyglass. "We're .8 better than Netscape!" animated GIFs were all the rage.
          3.0 - Coolbar, better bookmark handling, actually quite a stable browser, despite also pushing in VBScript and ActiveX.
          4.0 - Introduced DOM as well as n+1 security holes.
          5.x - Lots of fixes, some CSS improvements...
          6.x - More CSS improvements, though still not great.

          It should be 5.x, or even 4.x because of the version 1.0 thing.
      • Substituting version numbers for actual mathematical value is fun. But you forget that Firefox actually started as Netscape.
      • That's the reason why FireFox is "behind" IE in maturity. So what? The reasons don't argue against IE, or the "negatives" of FF in teh review; they prove the situation is real. Reviews (and software) are for people who want to do something today. For those of us interested in FF "going places", we've got SourceForge and Slashdot.

        BTW, I haven't used IE, even on Windows, for several years - too buggy/insecure, too much the tool of the Microsoft monopoly machine. I prefer alternatives, too, and I'm excited to
      • Firefox is version 1 while IE is version 6, they are 5 versions apart (in IE's terms though ;)

        Yes, but given current rates of development, Firefox will reach 7.0 before IE.
    • by PoprocksCk (756380) <poprocks@gmail.org> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:59PM (#11373946) Homepage Journal
      Yes, exactly. People should begin to understand that Firefox's lack of ActiveX is actually a good thing.

      In the article they say that it's a good thing because of security, but the Firefox programmers should find a way around it. Well there is an ActiveX extension out there, if you feel like voluntarily letting people hijack your computer...
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:02PM (#11373973)
        "Well there is an ActiveX extension out there, if you feel like voluntarily letting people hijack your computer..."

        or using your companies internal web apps that require ActiveX untill the bigwigs can be pursuaded to allocate funds and manpower "to rebuild something that already works."
    • "Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs."

      this article is great. it does a good job at explaining what firefox is and what it can do, and also tells the reader that if you try it and find a bug, don't trash it. give it time and keep it around.

      i really like this article. it'S how we al
    • by fm6 (162816) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:00PM (#11373952) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps these websites should move from building apps with ActiveX? just a thought
      Absolutely. And they should be more standards compliant, so a web page looks the same on all browsers. And there are a lot of other reasons web servers (or any kind of server) shouldn't rely on Microsoft's baroque, unpredictable, bit-tweaking approach to software.

      But the fact is, a lot of web servers do use Microsoft technology, and a lot of people have to be able to deal with that. It's part of their job, or something else that's important to them, and their not interested in any Microsoft-Mozilla religious war. If you forget that, you have have no hope of helping people move away from their dependency on Mister Bill's Empire.

      • The only servers requiring active-x are corporate web applications, and most of those that I know of are being written in java nowadays because active-x is so looked down upon. I give it 5 years before active-x is just a bad memory (but what the hell do I know?).
        • by fm6 (162816)
          What do you know? Not a lot. I see public Internet servers that use ActiveX all the time. If nothing else, you need it to access windowsupdate.microsoft.com.

          Sure, ActiveX will go away eventually. Microsoft itself is moving away from it. But that has nothing to do with what end users need now

        • My company just moved our internal applications from DOS to web-based.
          Plusses: central servers and backups, no special software installed on the computer, works from any internet computer (once you VPN in, of course).
          Downsides: Active-X, shitty copy-paste, wicked klugy-feeling. We probably won't replace it for another fifteen years.
  • by Staos (700036) * on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:48PM (#11373853) Journal
    Microsoft used Firefox [nwsource.com] in a press image they sent out promoting their MSN Search.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      My favorite is this article...

      "A bug-free surfing zone [...] Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs"

      Did the editors who came up with the headline even READ the article?

      Wait, I thought only Slashdot editors did that... GOOD LORD, "Globetechnology" is a front for Taco!
    • This article was not found or it has expired.

      Hmmm... wonder why...

    • For those of you who don't remember, when MSNBC first went on-air (1996?) all the screen shots they displayed on the network showed them using Netscape. (And they would cut to a shot of a computer screen very frequently.) Of course, this was at the beginning on the browser war when MS was still the minority, but my friends and I got a good laugh knowing MS had spent some huge amount of money for the channel and yet they will were not using IE. It took them a week to figure it out.

      Here is a Business week ar [businessweek.com]
    • For anyone who hasn't seen this, here's another article with a screenshot [nrg.co.il].

  • by Vermyndax (126974) <vermyndax.galaxycow@com> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:49PM (#11373857) Homepage
    You might have to keep IE around? What else are you going to do with it? It's integrated into the OS. The only way to get rid of it completely is to uninstall Windows. What's not to like about that statement? It's certainly worth a chuckle.
  • choice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antonymous Flower (848759) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:51PM (#11373868) Homepage
    'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'
    Not like Windows users have much of a choice..
  • Windows Update (Score:5, Informative)

    by IO ERROR (128968) * <errorNO@SPAMioerror.us> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:51PM (#11373876) Homepage Journal
    Windows Update [microsoft.com] is the big reason Firefox users keep having to use Internet Explorer. There's an ActiveX plugin for Firefox [www.iol.ie] out there, but I don't know if (with masquerading the user agent) it will run Windows Update. Anyone tried this? There's also an extension that adds Windows Update to Firefox's Tools menu [mozilla.org].
    • by InvisiBill (706958) <slashdot&invisibill,net> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:24PM (#11374136) Homepage

      The extension that adds Windows Update to the menu is just a shortcut to wupdmgr.exe, the same thing you have in your Start Menu. It doesn't add any new features, it just mimics IE's feature of having a shortcut to it right in the browser. It's been a while since I tried, but I don't think the ActiveX plugin supports WU. This plug-in is designed for custom, legacy and intranet solutions and nothing else.

      I find it easier just to not use Windows Update. I use Automatic Updates [microsoft.com] to get all my critical updates. If you're paranoid about AU, use their RSS feed [microsoft.com] and Security Bulletin Search [microsoft.com].

      • I find it easier just to not use Windows Update. I use Automatic Updates to get all my critical updates. If you're paranoid about AU, use their RSS feed and Security Bulletin Search.
        Hear, hear. There are much easier (not to mention better) ways to keep your computer up-to-date. My personal favorites are emerge, apt, or yum.... ;)
    • Just tried it - no, it won't work. You can get to the "checking for updates" page but then it won't go any further. At some later point I might check to see if I can figure out what's not working, but for now: no, it doesn't work.

      It's worth noting that if you use Windows XP with Automatic Updates enabled, you do not need to use Internet Explorer to install updates. (Well, except that I'm fairly sure the dialog box it displays while installing turns out to contain an embedded IE control.)

    • An ActiveX plugin for Firefox? Great. Wasn't that among the best things about Firefox? The lack of that stupid whim known as the ActiveX control..

      I suppose since it's a plugin it's not really a bad thing, but XP has an automatic update application (I recently bought a new PC which has it, I've never seen it before, so I don't really know much about it) with a little yellow sheild icon in the tray when updates are available. According to an earlier post, it doesn't require Internet Explorer.
    • If nothing else, I'm sure there are ways to force a link to open in a new Internet Explorer window, in which case you just point it to Windows Update, and that takes care of the IE problem. Never use it except when you go to Windows Update if you're that anti-IE. Though I almost always use IE, and I never have a problem.

      Then again, it's actually quite easy to keep IE running without being bombarded with spyware if you just pay a little attention and do a little homework. No sweat for me, anyway.
  • Personally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kipsaysso (828105)
    I haven't used IE to surf since I got firefox. And I have spread it around campus and have received only one complaint. Long live open source!
  • Firefox or IE? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by narl (802378) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:53PM (#11373890)
    Slashdot readers probably won't like the last phrase, though: 'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'"

    It isn't about using Firefox or Internet Explorer. Some of us don't have a Windows machine, so we don't even have the option of running Internet Explorer.

  • What do you mean? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by October_30th (531777) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:54PM (#11373897) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot readers probablyt won't like the last phrase

    And why would I object to it? It's a pretty well known fact that there are pages that just won't work with anything else than IE.

    At work, for instance, I can't use Firefox for certain tasks because the Java-based admin pages (finances and grading) at our University won't work with it. Java apps load and work to some extent, but the layout is so screwed up in a Firefox that the pages are essentially useless. In Linux the pages won't work at all because of some weird Java problems (I thought Java was supposed to be platform independent?).

    Complaining won't help, because IE is such a de facto standard that, according to the people who maintain the admin software, there is no support for "non-compliant" software such as Firefox and never will be.

    • You must have missed the several months of complaining back when I think Windows XP was first being released and Microsoft announced that they would include their own implementation of the Java runtime with Windows.

      FUD is one ways of doing the mean things they do, the other way is called "embrace and extend." They embraced the Java API (or whatever it is that's standardized and documented about Java) and extended it with some goodies that only worked with their runtime. As with rendering webpages, the Micr
    • Re:What do you mean? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trelane (16124)

      Java apps load and work to some extent, but the layout is so screwed up in a Firefox that the pages are essentially useless.

      So the page layout is messed up, or the applet layout is messed up?

      I thought Java was supposed to be platform independent?

      Java is platform-independent. There are two issues: most likely, the sites are using Microsoft's bastard Windows-ized "java" implementation (remember the Sun-MSFT Java lawsuit? It was about precisely this). I know several "java" things that require MSVM, an

    • And why would I object to it? It's a pretty well known fact that there are pages that just won't work with anything else than IE. ... according to the people who maintain the admin software, there is no support for "non-compliant" software such as Firefox and never will be.

      Got a study to back that up? I doubt it.

      I have not used IE at home for more than three years and have not had any problems. Sure, I've got an old version that came with Winblows 98, but I removed the network drivers from it ages ago

  • Windows Update (Score:3, Interesting)

    by s.o.terica (155591) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:54PM (#11373898)
    Yes, it's another entirely ironic aspect of Windows: you have to use their insecure web browser to update their buggy OS. I'm really surprised that the detaching of WU from IE wasn't part of some antitrust settlement.
  • Market Share? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bstadil (7110) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:55PM (#11373901) Homepage
    What drivel of an article. Someone tell the author that you can't really "remove" IE anyway>

    That being said anyone have recent penetration statistics. FF was gaining 0.5% every two weeks through Mid Decemeber but this is the last data I have seen. Anyone tracking this on their own site, the absolute is maybe less important the the trend.

  • Active X? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Never mind Active X. How about all those crappy sites that use Javascript to check the browser by name/version instead of using professional methods that check the browser's capability?

    One day (in the far distant future, no doubt), Javascript (/VBscript) will have either been seen to be the quick/dirty solution and deprecated with dynamic pages being server based or, the DOM will have been agreed as a proper object model with an agreed API. Perhaps then, a decent script language that is consistent across
  • by bcarl314 (804900)
    I work in a shop that is exclusively IE. In fact, they have a militant attitude to anything non-MS. Needless to say, I downloaded Firefox onto my workstation and opened up our corporate intranet site, the thing was a mess. Turns out the developers decided to use non-standard HTML and CSS along with sloppy coding practices. Of course, I'm sure someone got a huge contract for developing the site, but I fear that heads will roll once IE catches up to actually implementing standards.

    I only wish I didn't submit
  • Memory Leaks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rrowv (582861) <rrowv1@gmail.com> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:04PM (#11373990)
    My big complaint with FF isn't that you can't use Active-X. It's the massive memory leaks with tabbed browsing. FF routinely gets up to 350MB of memory usage. I use the internet *heavily* for research and reading news, so I open and close a huge number of tabs a day. Having to bookmark all the pages I have open every night so I can close down FF is a real pain (if I didn't, it would truely eat all my vm space). They really need to work on that...

    (It's been a known issue for a long time, but nobody seems to be able to fix it)
    • Re:Memory Leaks (Score:3, Insightful)

      Couldn't agree more. I love FF and use it exclusively, but the memory leaking from the tabs is fscking annoying.

      I'm not a coder, so forgive my ignorance, but how can it be that this is such a hard bug to fix? This is a legitimate question, not rhetoric.

      Surely there must be a way of clearing the tab cache when it is closed?

      • Re:Memory Leaks (Score:5, Informative)

        by jimicus (737525) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @03:01PM (#11374368)
        Memory leaks are notoriously difficult to fix, largely because it's very difficult to find what's caused it.

        The basic definition of a memory leak is "program requests memory, uses it, then doesn't give it back to the system afterwards". Here's an example of code that will cause a memory leak every time it's called:

        int leakyRoutine () {
        char *leak;
        leak=malloc(1024);
        return 0;
        }

        What happens here is: The program asks the operating system for 1024 bytes of memory. The operating system will return with a pointer to 1024 bytes of memory, which is stored in the variable leak.

        It's the program's responsibility to give that memory back afterwards. But once you're out of the function leakyRoutine(), the context is lost - you don't know what the value of the variable (and thus pointer) was. And if you don't know what memory you've got, you can't give it back.

        The operating system knows what memory every program has allocated, so can reclaim the memory back quite easily. But because the operating system doesn't know what the program is doing with its memory, it can't do so while the program is running. Otherwise, data corruption is likely.

        The above is a trivial example, and it's easy to see the problem. But what if there's a million lines of code, pointers are passed as arguments and return values between functions and you're not clear as to which function is responsible for freeing which pointers?
        • by EventHorizon (41772) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @03:41PM (#11374653)
          Tools such as 'valgrind' are great for catching memory problems like the one you described. However, it is best to use them continuously during development (ideally running automatic regression tests inside them). It's virtually impossible to clean up a huge amount of low quality code after the fact.

          Frankly the firefox codebase is the result of 7 years of development done largely without unit tests or even basic QA. As a result, they have leaks, bloat, and severe malformed HTML DoSes that lock up all browser tabs/windows.

          The key to good engineering is complete self-honesty, but these days it looks like firefox is being managed by a self-delusional marketing organization with no interest in fixing its serious technical problems.

          Linux users are encouraged to run 'valgrind firefox' prior to modding this post down for not towing slashdot's party line.
          • by EventHorizon (41772) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @04:10PM (#11374816)
            I did some more research after that post. If you want to run firefox under valgrind you actually need to use 'firefox --debugger valgrind'. With 'valgrind firefox', the startup script causes valgrind to analyze the script, rather than the actual browser process.

            Anyway, results with a single blank firefox 1.0 window:

            ==6273== ERROR SUMMARY: 83 errors from 5 contexts (suppressed: 272 from 3)
            ==6273== malloc/free: in use at exit: 691499 bytes in 12633 blocks.
            ==6273== malloc/free: 163851 allocs, 151218 frees, 25635248 bytes allocated.

            which IMHO is rather unacceptable for a 1.0 release.
        • Re:Memory Leaks (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CrystalFalcon (233559)
          Memory leaks are notoriously difficult to fix, largely because it's very difficult to find what's caused it.

          Nonsense.

          You use in-line instrumentation and catch the leaks as they happen in real time, with source references.

          A number of development products will do this. Look at BoundsChecker for one example.

          There is no excuse for a single memory leak today. At least, not for an easily reproducible one.

          Other than that, a few very simple engineering practices can eliminate all memory leaks. Those engineer
    • Re:Memory Leaks (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MobyDisk (75490)
      My big complaint with FF isn't that you can't use Active-X.
      Why? To me, this is the biggest FEATURE of FireFox. Please DO NOT ADD ANY SORT OF ACTIVEX SUPPORT. To met, that's like saying "My Email doesn' thave spam and spyware support." The only time I've ever used ActiveX is on an employer's intranet, for filling out my timesheet. And even then, they used ActiveX to instantiate the Java run-time because it was a Java applet!

  • As a Windows & Firefox user I find that the biggest problem is incompatible sites.

    Because there are some incompatible sites, I am unsure when I come across a problem on any site. I have to fire up MSIE and try the site with it, in order to know what the problem is. Half the time it turns out to work with MSIE.

    The solution is to reduce the number of incompatible sites. Obviously, the increasing market share of firefox helps.

    It would also be great if someone wrote software that crawled the internet,
  • by mauriceh (3721) <<maurice> <at> <harddata.com>> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:25PM (#11374147) Homepage
    Instead of posting "bitchfest" comments here, perhaps we should politely email the author and help him broaden his understandingof the issues?

    Here is what I wrote to him, as an example.
    While I am sure it is not perfect, I believe it touches on the matters he clearly does not yet understand.

    Emailed to: mingram@globeandmail.ca

    Re: Your article:
    A bug-free surfing zone

    By Mathew Ingram
    Friday, January 14, 2005 - Page R31

    Hi Matthew.
    While I have to thank you for a relatively informative article, I also have to point out that you are still, in many ways "Not getting it"

    You have fallen into two fundamental errors of understanding:

    First:
    " That engine forms the basis for a new browser called Firefox, which is free for Windows and Mac users"

    In this you badly missed the point of the Mozilla project.
    Firstly the Mozilla project is where various browsers, Gecko based and other, spawn from.
    It was an example of the first major project ceded to the Open Source movement.
    It was decided that the best way to encourage development, without being tied to a development budget, was to move the development to an Open Source model, where thousands of users/develeopers could adopt and continue the development unfettered by traditional copyright and ownership issues.
    By moving the Netscape source to a "copyleft" model this has clearly demonstrated an alternative and much more useful model for ownership and develeopment.

    Your second case of misunderstanding:
    Adding insult to injury you only mentioned the old (and many say obsolete) Microsoft and Apple environments, and totally ignored the much more relevant and modern Open Soruce communities, such as Linux and FreeBSD.

    Thirdly, in the last paragraph you wrote:
    "Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs."

    While I fully agree that Firefox is NOT perfect, the one item you chose as an erxample is not a bug!
    ActiveX and similar are not features, but instead are what can be called "malware".
    A model for extensions that is so insecure and flawed is not to be supported.
    It was a fatal error by Microsoft, and continues to be so.
    Nobody is interested in "fixing" this.
    If you want an extension model with some practical features, the world has already settled on a few, most notably PHP and Java. These can be secured, and can be considered "safe" extensions when properly implemented.

    The only "bug" that is relevant here is the continued dependancy by a handful of misguided developers who are still using ActiveX on web pages.

    The severity of this bug is such that the US Dept. of Homeland Security issued an advisory advising people to NOT use Internet Explorer.

    Internet Explorer and ASP IS the "bug".
    Avoiding it's faults is an improvement, NOT a "bug"

    BTW, whether you want to Internet Explorer installed on a Windows system is not a choice you get to make. M$ have integrated the browser into the OS in a fashion that does not allow you to remove it.
    All you can do is remove links to it. These are called "shortcuts" in Windows terms.

    Maybe next time you foray into this arena, good intentions in hand, you might want to submit your article for peer review in the relevant communities. I will be glad to point you in the directions for this if you like.
    Feel free to ask.

    BTW, this highlights what is probably the strongest feature of Open Source software: Peer review.

    By submitting code, text, and other means of expression to peer review, we utilize a wide community of people to assist in improving our works, avoiding the pitfalls of well intentioned, but misadvised concepts and cases where we simply were not aware of a relevant matter on the topic.

    We are all going to make mistakes, but i
  • We had 6 new employees start the other day. They will all be regional managers for some division of the company. They all got new Dell laptops and are needing access to some kind of Oracle software that runs a java client inside IE. First of all the client would not run at all because activex was completely disabled. So I reset it to "Prompt" and after a warning it installed and worked. Later one of the people teaching the software said "We're going to need to get rid of that prompt, it is too annoying
  • Windows Update (Score:2, Interesting)

    by IIskooterII (597091)
    Windows Update is not a reason to keep IE around, I work in an office that has gone to Firefox only browsing to prevent the computers from being filled with adware and spyware and let me too you it has helped 1000%. We use to have to keep IE as an option for Windows Update but now with Automatic Update, Windows XP handles all the downloading and updating without IE or those nasty ActiveX extensions. Seriously Firefox and Windows automatic update has saved well over 100 hours of tech support at work.

    I w
  • I thought it was "Integrated" with the operating system.
  • Is anyone reading slashdot really going to learn anything new from a review of firefox? Haven't we all been using it for years?
  • by ltwally (313043) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:58PM (#11374341) Homepage Journal
    Right from the very start the author of this article showed either how ignorant he is, or how biased he is, with this little opener:

    "Way back in the mists of time -- Internet-wise, at least -- there was a battle between a tiny startup company with a piece of software for browsing the Web (Netscape) and a giant software company with a reputation for playing hardball (Microsoft)."

    I'm not saying I'm pro-microsoft. I'm not saying I'm anti-microsoft, either. What I am saying is this:

    That one statement made by the author (Mathew Ingram) is complete bullshit. Anyone who actually remembers the start of the browser wars will know the following:
    1. Netscape may have been a little startup at one point, but by the time the browser wars began, it was the biggest Internet application around -- and it held enormous weight behind it.
    2. Netscape directly challenged Microsoft. Netscape thought that it could create a platform independant API, based around the Netscape software, that would make operating systems all but obsolete. They may not have been directly challenging windows, but they sure were threatening to make it obsolete. The challenged the Windows (Win16/Win32) API, which always has and (at least for the immediate future) always will be microsoft's bread 'n butter.

    I'm not saying MS's tactics were fair, or even legal. I'm not saying the browser market couldn't use some fresh blood and some competition. Whether microsoft played fair or not is beyond my current scope. The fact is that Netscape made a direct move against microsoft, and making Netscape out to be the poor innocent victim is really starting to get old. They made a decision to challenge one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world. They lost. End of story.

    Martyrs they are not. Examples of what not to do, they are.

    /*end of rant*/
  • I would suggest to anyone moving to Firefox not to make any special effort to remove IE. Two reasons for this:

    As they point out, sooner or later you'll want to visit an ActiveX site

    It's not worth the hassle of uninstalling IE.
  • Bug Free? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fm6 (162816) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @03:34PM (#11374603) Homepage Journal
    Firefox is hardly bug-free. Use it to access my resume [picknit.com] and you'll find a really nasty Javascript bug. (The link to my email is generated on the fly, to hide it from spambots. The hover behavior works correctly in IE but not Firefox.) At this point in time, Firefox has a lot fewer bugs (or at least a lot fewer bugs that really matter) than Internet Explorer. But this has as much to do with the increasing flakiness of Internet Explorer as with the improvement in Firefox.
    • Re:Bug Free? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Piquan (49943)

      Use it to access my resume and you'll find a really nasty Javascript bug. (The link to my email is generated on the fly, to hide it from spambots. The hover behavior works correctly in IE but not Firefox.)

      I don't see any nasty bug in Firefox. I do see a minor bug in Internet Explorer, and some bad HTML design in that code.

      The IE bug is that it displays, when you hover over the image, "click here to send me email". It is getting that from the alt tag on your image, and shouldn't. The alt tag [w3.org] is to "spe

  • by kalirion (728907) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @03:50PM (#11374721)
    This is another reason I keep IE around. Open up a new browser window, and you've got a new session, whether you need one to test a web app you're developing or just to be logged into multiple mail.yahoo accounts at the same time. With Firefox the only way to get a new session is to log out of the old one (or close all Firefox windows.) And no, I do not want to mess around creating multiple profiles for something that IE accomplishes with a single click.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...