Firefox's Effect On Other Browsers 475
An anonymous reader points out an interview with Mozilla's "evangelist," Christopher Blizzard, regarding the future of Firefox and how it affects other browsers. It's an Austrian site, so forgive the comma abuse. From derStandard:
"It's sort of interesting though, part of our strategy is to make sure, that we continue making change and the indirect effect of this is that Microsoft continues to have to do releases, because if we get so far ahead that we're able to drive the platform they are not able to keep up and keep their users. I mean, we have this joke which says 'Internet Explorer 7 is the best release we ever did,' because they would not have done it, if we would have not built Firefox. And the same is true for Apple, they are doing a lot to keep up with us. Safari 3.1 is a good example, as far as we see it, the only reason they did this release was that Firefox 3 would come out and have Javascript speed which would be twice as fast as theirs, cause that's how it was before. So by pushing other people to make releases we can go on our mission to make sure the web stays healthy."
What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Safari 3.1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe they did it because they were pushing javascript apps for the iPhone, and working on the javascript-based SproutCore frameworks and the associated MobileMe apps.
Not everything revolves around Firefox.
wow; Big pair on him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow; Big pair on him. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
My mother is a typical late 60's web user... she has a handful of site she likes to visit and not much more. She has memorized the basic functions I taught her years ago and she's happy with that.
Recently I upgraded her FF2 to FF3 and taught her how to use the new address bar and bookmarking / search functionality. She nailed it in 2-3 minutes and was looking up sites in her history with ease. I was back there a couple days ago and sure enough she has already bookmarked a dozen new sites and raves about how much easier she finds the internet now. (you'd think they had redesigned the entire internet... which in essence is what a browser upgrade can do for you)
To me that right there outlines one of the reasons FF3 is going to produce another large spike in new users. Get what you want easily and with less hassle.
Re:competition breeds improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
You are indeed correct - but there was more to it than that. Keep in mind that at the time they put Win2K into the planning stages, OS/2 had the server market (due to all the vertical market businesses that IBM catered to). MS needed something that competed, and was decent.
Of course, the other added factor was continually breaking and changing networking implementations and such to ensure that since "your" workstations (mostly) ran Windows, the server had to as well.
Before that, you could manage a Windows domain from OS/2 simply by drag-n-drop. Since MS couldnt beat that (and still doesnt have anything remotely close), they had to make another release (both for competitive reasons and to break compatibility with LanMan).
The key thing (competition) is what died in those areas... fortunately in the browser market, MS can no longer leverage their monopoly to create a similar situation, leaving everyone having to either play catch-up to stay in the game or fighting to stay ahead. We all benefit...
Re:Opera (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Opera lagged behind with the most significant feature: being free.
According to the wiki timeline it wasn't until around 2000 when a 'free' version became available (supported by inbuilt ads), and then as recent as 2005 when finally the ads were removed.
Re:wow; Big pair on him. (Score:5, Insightful)
What amazes me, is that Apple has not pushed OO to be on there. They would be smart to add a few coders to the project just to ensure that it can compete against Office on their platform.
Apple has Pages, Keynote, and Numbers (I pay for them rather than use OO.). Oh, and Microsoft Office. Apple's interest in open source is more of the system/library part, not the front end user experience.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the great things that FF team did was to allow huge volumes of customization. It can be both a blessing and a curse, but allowing the add-ons and creating an environment where they could be created made FF much more than a web browser. For that, other browsers will constantly have to keep up. FF took bleeding edge and made it cool and functional. It takes a big stick to beat that. Being able to bolt on functions like ABP, foxmarks, FireFTP mean that much of my work is browser based now, and I'd not switch from FF without a great deal of effort by other broswers. I can switch back and forth from Linux to Windows and not really notice any difference in how I'm working.
Better than that, FF makes is so that joe public can experience the same functionality, and with little effort, realize that Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora et al can be just as useful, if not more so, than MS products and OS. Most of the computer user's experience is a web browser these days. If that part works right, most people don't give a damn what OS is working underneath it. I've converted quite a few people, FF first, then OS, like falling dominos.
From my vantage point, FF has done far more than they are taking credit for. FAR MORE.
Re:wow; Big pair on him. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because Apple would never release a product with a user interface even remotely close to anything office classic?
And I'm glad they don't. What I can't understand is why Staroffice/OpenOffice tried so hard to copy something so bad.
Piling on... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm looking forward to canned index databases for interesting site(s).
The whole idea of exposing data to the user is going to lead to some interesting long-term effects.
If nothing else, one hopes that it will help usher the demise of that ugly data Bastille called the Windows Registry.
Re:Safari not trailing Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox will eventually use tamarin, which should be on par with Squirelfish.
Yes, but Squirelfish was developed first. Hence proving my point, Firefox is not the only leader in innovation; as this "evangelist" seems to be implying.
Re:Safari not trailing Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest taking a look at the commit history of both Gecko and Webkit in the last year or so where JS perf is concerned.
You'll find that they've basically been pushing each other, in almost perfect alternation: one checks in a patch that makes it faster, the other responds with changes that make it faster, etc.
Seriously, go read the checkin logs.
Re:Opera (Score:2, Insightful)
According to the wiki timeline it wasn't until around 2000 when a 'free' version became available
...and this stops you from using it now, why?
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
probably because A> IE is a gaping security hole. B> it still sucks and has minimal useful plugins. C> you might be using linux D> choice
tabs were not the main feature; the main feature was the security, lack of popups, lack of exploits and etc.
Re:wow; Big pair on him. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what your point is in the first two paragraphs. You're correct that Apple saw financial benefit from jump-starting their development with open-source code, then gave back in turn by releasing vast numbers of bugfixes and feature upgrades to those projects. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I would consider WebKit one of the top-tier open source projects in history and it's being led by Apple.
Yes, Apple does lots of things that are proprietary. They often care more about user experience, time to market, and cost than they do about making sure their file formats (which these days are usually based on an embedded relational database) are fully documented for every third party developer. But they give away their development environment at no extra charge and it's pretty easy to use, so it's only really a problem if you insist on trying to reproduce it all without just buying a Mac and getting on with life...
As for comparing it to FireFox... I'd say that WebKit has probably driven FireFox more than vice-versa. WebKit really started pushing boundaries in new feature adoption and old feature conformance sooner than FireFox did. And I don't think the FireFox guys really want to get into a pissing match on JavaScript performance with SquirrelFish in the WebKit nightlies.
Re:Way to go FF! (Score:4, Insightful)
KDE open-sourced KHTML. Apple didn't have a choice in the matter.
Nonsense. KHTML is LGPL. Apple could have used the libraries without contributing anything back.
Moreover, the DOM is Apple's, not KHTML's. WebCore, the basic component of WebKit, has very little relationship to KHTML.
It was so divergent that the KDE folks pretty much had to accept WebKit as the new KHTML if they wanted to accept the improvements.
That's not at all true. Most of the improvements shared back upstream, including KHTML's ability to pass Acid2, were adapted prior to the merger. KDE adopted WebKit by choice. There was nothing stopping them from continuing development of KHTML separately, nor was their any requirement that the KDE people actually adopt any of Apple's improvements.
Sour grapes that KHTML was largely abandoned in favor of something better doesn't explain why it's WebKit, and not KHTML, that is being adopted by other platforms.
Re:It's funny... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hated every alternative to Opera until I tried... oh wait, nevermind. Still hate every alternative.
See what I did there? Completely subjective.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, to discuss the gist of the article, FF hasn't done anything to the browsers that wasn't already done before. FF is a good middle of the road browser with the added benefit of being open sourced. I love me some Grease Monkey scripts but I mostly don't use FF unless I'm testing the latest build or looking to see if what I've written renders properly.
I use Opera a great deal. I do a lot of work in Opera actually, if anything Opera is my workhorse browser.
I use IE more than any other browser out there. Yeah... Really. I use it for the add-ons. IE has the add-ons that I want that work how I like them and so I use it. Fortunately I'm not one of the unwashed masses. I manage to get IE to run as secure as any other browser on the market with little or no actual changes to the browser itself. Most browsers have their own potential security issues, IE has more than most and I freely admit this and won't bother debating the reasons, but the reality is that it is safe hex and a multiple layer defense that enables one to remain reasonably secure online regardless of their OS, software, or desired content. Security is a process, not an application.
You know, seeing as I have made it this far into the post... I'm tired of seeing people say "this is the best" or "that is the best" when the reality is the only best out there is what works best for the person using the software. You, of all people, weren't saying that but having scanned the entire thread I can see that's a lot of what people are saying. I call that zealotry and ask, "If you have a client who wants to use IE as their browser of choice to you treat them like you do here or do you do what they asked and secure their machine for them?" But, well, you don't seem to be asking more than a simple question.
FF3 is an improvement, I haven't measured but it *seems* to load faster on this computer than prior versions did. It also hasn't frozen even though I've seen it up near 400 MB of RAM use. I am really impressed but the attitude that FF has done much of *anything* innovative is really beyond me when there were browsers that did/do all of what I use in FF long before FF did. I am of the school where if I want something then I'll pay for it and I was once a full fledged version buyer of Opera. As in, well, most any/all versions I owned. Why? Just because I wanted to check proper rendering of pages so I could compare with the results in IE. Opera is free now, as is FF, but I still also like to check in OffByOne and Safari.
The main thing, from my view, that FF has going for it is a fan base and, as we all should know (even if we don't admit it), it is the actual fan base that keeps open source projects going. Someone better than I at math can likely quantify the number of active participants vs. the longevity of an open source project. Firefox has a pile and I wish them all well and will likely always try to keep tabs on their major releases as well as keeping a copy to test the rendering but, well, it sadly won't ever be my browser of choice I suspect.
Sometimes I wonder if the FF community would get more assistance from people if they did (not saying you are - I just want to make that clear, that I'm not saying you are doing so) not spend so much time trying to prove that they're better or even different. Let them compete on quality of product and leave the politics at home.
Re:Way to go FF! (Score:4, Insightful)
LGPL isn't the same as a BSD permissive-style license,
No. But neither is it the same as the GPL generally.
The reason it was known as the Library GPL is that it allowed the non-contributory use of GPL'd libraries by other types of software licensed under terms incompatible with the GPL.
The KHTML library changes would have had to be shared per the terms of the licenses. This requirement, however, does not even encompass all of WebCore, let alone WebKit.
As far as I know, however, any changes or improvements made to the LGPL'ed programme itself must be distributed Freely, with source, if it is to be distributed at all.
Any changed or improvements to the LGPL'd software, which it is a complete program or a library. In the case of KHTML, it is a set of libraries. Those libraries were adopted into the codebase for WebCore--and only those libraries derived from the KHTML libraries would need to be shared.
It does not extend to other libraries written by Apple or any other developer, and it does not extend to products merely containing those libraries. Limiting that "wagon-hitching" (widely, and in some ways regrettably, known as "parasitic") effect of the GPL is the reason the LGPL exists in the first place.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because while IE was implementing Firefox's old features, Firefox was implementing new features (some of them from Opera). So IE is still behind.
the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer
Opera (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the Firefox team vs Opera?
I still have no idea why everyone discounts Opera so much when it is functionally similar to Firefox with most of the common extentions.
Re:Piling on... (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously didn't deal much with Win 3.x. Registry is much better than config files scattered throughout. I wouldn't mind if it were replaced, but it needs to be a step forward, not back. Linux still has config files scattered in a zillion different places. It would be nice if all configs went into an organized hierarchy.
Um. All the configs do go into an "organized hierarchy"! It just happens to be a filesystem hierarchy (/etc) rather than an impenetrable binary file.
XML files located in a couple of standardized locations. As in one location for machine level configs, and one location each for user level configs.
XML sucks for configuration files, to be honest. Trying to hand-edit XML in a 40x80 nano session in single-user mode... no thanks. Not to mention that XML is decidedly grep-unfriendly.
I think I'm going to have to assume that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Try harder!
Re:Opera (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Opera's not firefox.
It's functionally similar but the UI isn't worse, it's just different. The browser behavior... isn't worse, it's different, and I prefer Firefox over opera. Even though opera is so feature rich. It's the reason why I have an iphone and not any number of other 3G phones with more features but different behavior
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say Adblock is the main feature which makes Firefox differ from other non-IE browsers. Safari, Galeon, Konqueror, and so on. All of them have security, no popups, tabs and so on. Yet only Firefox has a rich system of extensions.
Safari looks promising as a browser for when you're forced to use Windows, its own font rendering especially stands out. But no Adblock/PithHelmet/... -- no deal. Galeon and Konqueror are mostly meh. And since switching from CRT to LCD dragged me kicking and screaming into X (console on LCD sucks), eLinks lost its appeal.
F*** Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Because everything that people tote about Firefox--albeit in features that you have to plugin yourself--was being done by Opera first and for years before Firefox came along. Mouse gestures, intelligent pop up blocking system integrated into the browser, you name it and those of us had it while using Opera before Firefox was even a buzzword.
And after all these years, Opera continues to reign superior over Firefox in every area that counts: customization, speed, compatibility, portability, innovating new features with subsequent releases. The only thing that makes it difficult is when you hit a site that denies access, only because you're not using either IE or Firefox...despite Opera being more compatible with web standards and the like. Ponder that. Firefox wasn't the solution to any of the web's problems, it's part of the problem. It's an imitator just the same as IE, and dominating the market despite providing an inferior experience. The only boast to be made is that it's better than IE, and that isn't saying a whole lot.
Re:Piling on... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not ~/.settings and /settings? /preferences?
or ~/.preferences and
you suggestion is just as arbitrary as any other, and isn't a leap forward in any sense.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
And useability. What have Microsoft got against menus nowadays?
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:3, Insightful)
it's OpenSource (which is a big deal for a lot of people)
And is probably the reason for the better plugins -- my life would be a lot harder without zotero.
FireFox roots - Opera (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, if not Opera, there would probably be no FireFox. As obviously FireFox was born as a free opensource alternative to Opera.
So who do we thank?..
Well we can probably thank FireFox for pushing Opera to get rid of those ads it used to have. ;)
the cheek (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is Opera never given its due? Opera engineers always come up with the new ideas and inventions, the rest blatantly copy them and fashion them as their own. Most people clearly see microsoft copying from "firefox", but opera being obscure, few notice that everyone is actually copying from opera. and now firefox has the nerve to say theyre the ones making other browsers better.
No one said anything about a threat... (Score:4, Insightful)
And to all those ignorant mods who called me a troll: Opera has been around in fairly significant numbers since about 2000. Even if it had minimal market share, that is the timeframe in which it became noticed by the web cognoscenti. Firefox came out around the end of 2004 (pre-Mozilla came out around the end of 2002).
At the time Mozilla/Firefox was being formed, IE was pretty static, with no significant feature development occurring (IE6 in 2001, IE7 not until 2006). IE certainly wasn't driving feature development in other browsers. Safari didn't even exist in public until 2003.
In addition to the obvious tabbed browsing (no, they didn't invent tabs, but they did popularize them in browsers), Opera has also set the bar for standards support and rendering speed.
Specifically with reference to the article and Mozilla/Firefox, the three most significant UI features of Mozilla/Firefox [wikipedia.org], tabbed browsing, easy inline find, and custom shortcuts, all appeared in Opera previously.
Yes, Opera has been a significant factor in driving feature development in other browsers, and it deserves that recognition and respect, even if you choose to use something else.
Specious viewpoint (Score:3, Insightful)
.
The reason why Safari came out with the faster JavaScript is that the faster JavaScript was needed for the MobileMe service's web interface.
It is nothing more than trivially humorous that a FireFox fanboy describes the world as being Firefox-centric.
Having said that, competition, whether imagined (as with Mozilla's "evangelist," Christopher Blizzard) or real, is always for the better.
Re:Meanwhile, you're keeping up with Opera. :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
That was great, but Opera Software's decision to charge for a full-featured version without intruding ads up until 2005 severely cut its marketshare compared to IE (which shipped as part of Windows since Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2) and Firefox (which was always free to use). If Opera Software had decided to make its browser truly "free" in 2003 its marketshare would be vastly larger, that's to be sure.
Re:Piling on... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem tho... /etc, and it's up to the app author to give them sensible names... .ini files all over the place, and the registry doesn't really improve matters because the entries are just all over the registry now.
Unix puts configuration in
Windows put it's
Text files are a must, comments in the config files are incredibly useful, being able to edit the file with your editor of choice (and not needing to use specialised tools - great for recovery situations) is also a huge advantage.
Fanboy Mods Suck (Score:3, Insightful)
IE7 has the security and reliability. It's also quicker than FF and doesn't leak memory like a sieve
In the classic battle of IE7 vs FF2, he's absolutely right.
I tried FF2 a few years ago when everyone seemed unable to get enough of the kool-aid. While superior to IE6 for its tabbed browsing, once IE7 rolled out, FF2 lost its only edge.
Today, I run FF3 with minimal addons. I don't use NoScript, because it turns normal web browsing into a circus of "allow" clicks, and makes UAC look good.
Still though, I refuse to drink either side's kool-aid. Firefox is not the shining gift from heaven some people think it is, and IE is not the complete trash slashdotters generally insist it is.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before:
Me: You should try FireFox.
Friend: Why?
Me: See the tabs? Makes things a whole lot easier to keep track of.
Friend: Awesome!
FireFoxUsers++;
Now:
Me: You should try FireFox.
Friend: Why?
Me: *Browses to MySpace* Notice anything different?
Friend: Where are all the annoying ads?
Me: It's called AdBlock.
Friend: Awesome!
FireFoxUsers++;
Re:Piling on... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you mean something like /etc/ and /home/ ?
"Scattered" is just another way of saying fault tolerant.
If all of my eggs aren't in one basket, and a poorly constructed
basket at that, then I don't have to worry about them being all
destroyed by one stupid mistake.
One app doesn't NEED a mechanism by which it can conveniently
destroy everyone else's configuration or the configuration for
every other app.
Once you centralize something you need to start thinking about
how little things like disaster recovery and change management
are going to be handled. "Some XML file" just doesn't cut the
mustard. It's another registry quagmire waiting to happen.
It's this simpleminded "convenience centric" thinking that clobbers Windows.
You've identified no clear problem that needs to be solved with this poorly thought out new mechanism.
Re:What astonishes me... (Score:3, Insightful)