Mozilla 1.8b1 Released, Firefox Growth Slowing 425
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla 1.8 Beta 1 has been released, and in addition to numerous bug fixes now includes ECMAScript for XML (E4X). Mozilla 1.8 will serve as the code basis for Firefox 1.1. In other Mozilla related news, WebSideStory saw Firefox's usage growth slow down to just 15% (Jan-Feb) from 22% (Dec-Jan) making Firefox's 10% marketshare goal for 2005 potentially more challenging. Their stats also saw Internet Explorer usage drop below 90% for the first time in many years."
Is this the end of the ride? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait and see what happens when 1.1 is released.
Re:Is this the end of the ride? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a silly prediction to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Circumstances change over time
Re:Is this the end of the ride? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the media hype about it is just over.
Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of why IE has been so problematic is that during their war for the browser they "extended" the crap out of it, adding a lot of out-of-standard enhancements and extensions. IE has countless API's that keep web sites and applications stuck on IE and making it harder to switch to something else (really, no different then anything else Microsoft has ever made.)
Firefox is open source, it adheres to standards more strictly, and it's a lot more light-weight. There's less opportunity for malware to get in with Firefox, and if there's a security flaw it's fixed a lot faster. On the other hand, because of IE's extensions and extra functionality, it makes it much more difficult for Microsoft to back off on all the extra (and not soundly designed) features because everyone is stuck on them.
Re:Growth is phenomenally fast & not really sl (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not surprised at slowed growth (Score:4, Insightful)
Earlier you mention 'phony' statistics that were 'anecdotal'. Do you have research to substantiate what you've claimed above?
Some people are just stubborn (Score:5, Insightful)
What can be done about these kinds of users? Is this the vast middle-ground of IE users that just won't switch?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not surprised at slowed growth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not surprised at slowed growth (Score:2, Insightful)
Note that the vulnerability in that last link was marked "confidential" for five years. Rather Microsoft-ish.
Re:Is this the end of the ride? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly why you should get them using Firefox. If they don't see a difference, then that makes it all that much easier for them to switch.
You know what I do?
My mom bought a new laptop from Dell recently, and she asked me to drive up and configure it for her, which I did. What I did was to use Windows' "Set Program Access and Defaults" to use Firefox as the default browser, and completely removed IE altogether from menus, the desktop, etc. by telling the configuration program to not allow access to it. This is easier than it seems, since Windows will remove all icons and shortcuts to it so there's no way to bring up IE unless you either run WindowsUpdate or specifically type 'iexplore' into the Run dialog.
I then installed an IE theme into Firefox and *poof!* To them it runs exactly the same, and nobody is the wiser. If I really wanted to make it transparent, I could've renamed the shortcuts and changed the icons, and I could probably have figured out a way to make it actuallY SAY "Internet Explorer" in the title bar.
I did the same thing today with a friend of a friend who had so much spyware she couldn't even check her webmail.
In both cases, I didn't even need to make them THINK they were running IE, as once I told them that they wouldn't notice a difference in their web surfing experience, that firefox had copied over all of their previous settings and cookies, and that they wouldn't be getting any more spyware unknowingly, they were ecstatic. All they really needed was to have their default browser changed and IE removed so they didn't load it without thinking, and they were happy as pigs in shit.
I really don't think it's too hard to make people understand that the benefits of using a better program easily outweigh the small inconvenience of remembering that it's not called Internet Explorer. Once they understand that all of those annoyances won't be showing up later on, they are more than happy to double-click on a different icon.
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
FUD? No, but a pretty damn good guess going off past history of IE.
Re:Not surprised at slowed growth (Score:1, Insightful)
US users only (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Firefox is the code base, not Mozilla. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla 1.8 is basically just there to test Gecko which will be in Firefox 1.1. New Mozilla's are just testing bitches for Firefox.
Re:Is this the end of the ride? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some people are just stubborn (Score:4, Insightful)
I think typically this sort of behaviour is a result of previous bad bad experiences leading to a "if it ain't completely broke, then for God's sake don't touch anything!" mentality. People are so afraid that their computer will stop working that they don't want to take any risks at all. (keep in mind that these people have no way to fix their computer if it does stop working, so this attitude isn't necessarily a bad one!)
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some people are just stubborn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It will pick up once the corps grab it (Score:3, Insightful)
Deployment not easy enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Next week, I would like to install both apps on 12 desktops running Win2K and XP.
12 is not 1000. I cannot spend 2 days finding how to do it, testing it, correcting, etc. I could install manually, but doing 12 times the same clicking around doesn't sound like fun (I'm not a mouse clicking fan either).
While I want settings to be in the user's profile, I need to make sure the web cache is elsewhere and isn't copied through the network at every logon/logoff.
I want to get rid of the moronic paths both apps use with "default" and "some-random-string".
I would like stuff in the Default Profile, so new users get it automatically.
This sort of thing doesn't look easy and straight-forward enough yet, and I'm sure that it is what is keeping many admins from deploying it on their desktops.
I will try it anyway, but I won't be able to bill the time I will have to spend researching how to do it right. Especially since the client didn't ask me to do that anyway. They are happy with MSIE. So I will spend time on my own cost, just to find how to install something that will hopefully generate less work for me in the future because I won't have to spend so much time cleaning infected machines because of MSIE.
I hope FFDeploy [dbltree.com] will help, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing for Thunderbird.
Last but not least: Firefox and Thunderbird are terrible memory hogs, with Firefox sometimes growing to insane memory usage levels (75 MB right now, but I've seen it go to 150!), and sometimes also crashing consuming 99% CPU. Fortunately, this last problem doesn't happen very often, but I will hate it when users on whom I forced Firefox call me on the phone because it crashed, so I can tell them to "press Ctrl-Alt-Del, select Firefox, click End Task, restart Firefox but-you-know-it's-a-much-better-and-more-secure-b
I do believe it's a much better browser, and it's my default browser since it was called Phoenix, but instead of contemplating statisics, I think there is still a lot work to do to make it even better, and to help administartors actually deploying it.
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose a FF extension becomes really popular, and somebody finds an exploit in it?
Wait, wait! Don't tell me! Let me guess!
Is it..... um, no.
How about...... no, that's not it.
Oh, I know...
You disable the fucking extension!
That's it (Score:2, Insightful)
People will not try a new browser or even more a new OS because it's just too scary. For non IT oriented folks who just need to use a computer it's wicked hard to keep from screwing it up to the point of non functionality. It's *easy* to screw up, impossible to fix, so if they get something running for them even half way stable and half way useful they think this is the epitome of "computing". I mean even half way is plenty good enough because the alternative they have seen more often than not is "not working at all".
It's like someone's favorite old shirt, frayed, maybe a button missing, etc. Sure you can get a new shirt, but it won't be as "comfortable".
Most of the world *isn't* slashdot, they have different interests and a computer is an appliance at work to run a few boring but necessary for that paycheck tasks, or it's an exalted videogame machine at home that people more think of as a television with a few more features but not as many normal channels. and it pisses them off that after two years even though nothing is broken they are supposed to upgrade the whole thing. they go "HUH?". And with modern software of the bleeding edge, every few months. Say what? People in general just don't want to do that, it's a PITA.
People don't upgrade their toasters TVs microwaves blenders vacuunm cleaners stereos etc every other day or week, they think it's weird and stoopid you have to do that with computers, and I don't blame them, it IS weird AND stoopid.
It's just wrong to expect people to become nascar mechanics or have that level of tech interest just to drive a car. They just aren't going to be out everyday giving it a tuneup and changing the oil and doing bodywork and swapping engines and stuff like that, so it's nuts to think they are going to be doing the equivalent with computers. And to force them to do that because the stuff that was just pushed on them last month is now "horribly broken and obsolete and you need new and improved whizzbang v1.9.5x" etc is cuckoo really. They think "that geek idjit *just told me a couple months ago* this was the best thing since burgers in a bag, now I need to do it again? why???"
Why indeed!
Firefox and linux etc will only get huge market share and get "mature" when that is what's installed on new computers from all the major vendors and it's on the store shelves at the retail level,AND it's not obsolete weekly and the updates are beyond automagical.. And that won't happen without demand, and there's *very little demand to the vendors coming from the open source community because they do all that stuff themselves* and are more the equivalent of nascar mechancis and racing enthusiasts than they are 'daily drivers'. Linux and open source (browsers or whatever) NEEDS a "daily driver" dose of reality to make that breakthrough..
Nerds build their own boxes, try out new stuff, etc. It just will never get much beyond that level of mindshare and marketshare beyond what it has now without credible persistant demand at the retail store cash level, and sad to say it just isn't happening. Daily drivers aren't asking for it, and the nerds aren't either, so????? Why should the vendors or the developers deliver? The vendors still sell all they want to regardless, they still making the coin hand over fist, and the developers are off in nerd land, far far away from daily driver land.
And that's why it's slowing down, too. I've already heard from some windows users how "firefox just doesn't work" after they tried it at my recommendations. So I actually quit doing that. I have stopped recommending it. Waste of time almost. The farthest I go now is recommend people try a "live" cd, because it's easier for them to backout of the deal and I won't get any tech support cries. If they can't be bothered to download and burn a distro to try or send away 2 bucks to get a complete operating system, they for SURE won't be able to run it or tweak it even to a m
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:4, Insightful)
Before or after you've been exploited? Just like with IE, you have to use common sense.
Growth rate still huge (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially since they're still growing, and incredibly quickly. They picked up about a percentage point a month two months straight. Since it started that at about 4%, they were seeing 25% *monthly* growth. Good god, how long could that have possibly continued?
Oh, and they only grew 14% this month. So I agree, that kills the whole "as many customers as they'll ever have" crap.
I mean, really. This is THE open-source success story of the year. How many companies see 14% monthly growth? Legally operating companies? Not between 1998-2000?
At this point, they'll easily see 7.5% by June. They'll need some continued press, and hopefully a few more killer IE bugs, but 10% by December is a very reachable goal.
I swear, sometimes I think the asshats around here won't be happy unless IE's at 0% by Thursday.
Re:Is this the end of the ride? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:that makes no sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be nice if it had strong type safety. It would be nice if full type information was present on every interface. It would be nice if didn't have stupid funky memory management issues. It would be really nice if it didn't have the awful apartment models. It would be nice if it had a lot of things, actually. But what it does have is a pretty simple design, and it scales. It allows for neat extensions. It allows for a slick upgrade path. And even if I think DCOM is the spawn of Satan, the fact that it was possible to implement it after-the-fact with a legacy set of objects is still kind of neat.
The other thing that I like about it is it strictly enforces the "black box" usage of the interfaces (for the most part.) Even though our COM objects are written in C++ and mostly used by C++ applications, we use VB test programs. Why? Partly because some of the objects end up getting used in ASP web pages, but also because we know if we can fully test it with an IDispatch caller, the coders aren't playing "pointer shenanigans" through the interface.
Jeez, listen to me. I sound like a Billy the Gates fanboi, eh? Well, Don Box made me say it!
Adblock? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern browsers let you override a site's stylesheet for a reason you know, some people just want to read the content and dont want to be bothered with all the fancy stuff the author put in because he already has the content..
The number of sites i go to where the text is rendered unreadable by a background pattern/image, but atleast i can highlight it or cut+paste it into another app, can't do that with flash.
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that a lot of organisations seem to jump straight into using Flash as, probably, "it looks cool". It wouldn't matter so much except that many of the sites don't need to be done that way.
Now Flash cartoon sites, movie sites, music sites:
These I can fully understand being primarily Flash-driven. Granted I still think they should always have a non-Flash alternative - which some still lack. But these are sites based around audio-visual content, so displaying them as ausio-visual content makes sense.
On the other hand I seriously can't understand why college websites put totally pointless animations in before you can get to their content.
Luckily these rarely use Flash menus, as these are sites I specifically want to open in a new window/tab.
Re:Firefox isn't made by Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
Done that. (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, I wasnt fired for changing to Moz. I quit.
Re:E4X looks pretty sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't perpetuate the name. People have been doing this for years, and it was never called "Ajax."
Adaptive Path did not invent this method.