AOL Beta Testing Gecko-Based Browser 367
Bedouin X writes: "MozillaZine is reporting that AOL has released a Gecko client for Windows! Scuttlebutt says that it's based on Gecko .94.2. While I think that the common assumption that AOL including Gecko equals 34 million new OSS users is fallacious (most AOL hits on my site are 5.0), there is no denying that it would be a major - though seemingly inevitible - win and great for a more standard web. Maybe Capital One would quit being the lone holdout of my creditors that don't support Mozilla." Reader SEE also adds a link to a story on CNET.
New Startup Sound (Score:4, Funny)
major - though seemingly inevitible - win and grea (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I don't see how you perceive an open and standard web as 'inevitable'. Prior to the AOL move, I would have considered a Microsoft proprietary web considerably more 'inevitable' than open standards.
Most of the public doesn't even truly understand what open standards are or mean, much less feel them important. But these are the same people who take it for granted that the half-inch coarse-thread nut fits on the half-inch coarse-thread bolt, no matter who made each part.
ha (Score:2, Insightful)
Take that, mozilla bashers.
Was there any reason not to think that a standards-compliant, easily embeddable, open-source HTML renderer wouldn't eventually become a great choice for network software? It doesn't depend on users taking it on themselves to go get and use mozilla (which I agree wasn't too likely), any more than it depends on them going and getting GTK and making their own browsers. What mattered was whether software developers and companies that make and distribute network software found it useful.
lots of users (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, sites that say "works best in Internet Explorer" may have to reevaluate their stance on the issue.
Netscape is about to be back in the ring, and just lined up millions of people in their corner. Standards might mean something again soon.
-Pete
Re:lots of users (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards only began to mean something when Mozilla became usable.
Re:lots of users (Score:2)
Just wait until you can only see AOL approved sites, wouldn't that be nice?
What are you talking about? The reason that people are so excited about this is that Gecko is just about 100% compliant with the relevant W3C standards. They're not throwing in proprietary tags in either HTML or CSS, JavaScript is based on the ECMA standard, and so forth. AOL might want to increase their marketshare, but they are going about doing it in the most professional possible (at least in this case.)
- Rev.Re:lots of users (Score:3, Informative)
Re:lots of users (Score:2)
I don't want to see a one-option browser market, whether it's Gecko, IE, Opera or Konqueror based. By having competition in the browser market, there's more pressure to support standards in order to get sites viewable by as many people as possible.
Re:lots of users (Score:2, Interesting)
Uhhhhh... Because AOL isn't abusing a monopoly position to destroy potential competition? Next question.
Oh yeah, that's right, you are required to use AOL and Gecko now... How silly of me. I thought you had any number of choices of ISPs and could still use IE or Opera if you wanted to.
It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
Yes I know Mozillas recent [good] record on standards compliance, but as it stands MS is holding the baton.
In short, I think this is a bluff on AOLs part, as there's too much commercial risk here, and there's no way AOL is going to take those risks (with a relatively dumb userbase), with the possibility of large user unhappiness.
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if it is a bluff, to be successful in brinksmanship against Microsoft, you must be prepared to go all the way, and you may actually need to go all the way.
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.
I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.
- Rev.Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2)
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's that "extension?" Personally, I think it'll be a Microsoft-led effort to replace Java applets with
Yes, I already know that browser-embedded Java isn't a great technology either, but at least it's available on every platform. If we ended up with a Web largely dependent on
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2)
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While some of them are certainly going to complain to AOL, others will complain to the webmasters. And when enough webmasters make their sites standards-complaint, less users will complain to AOL. Let's hope the number of compliant sites reaches a critical mass before AOL decides to drop Gecko.
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:3, Informative)
My website has been blamed for crashing AOL user's computers (simple html + text, no JS), for being full of broken links (due to a site update combined with the AOL cache) and many other odd things that were pretty obviously the fault of AOL.
We've currently got an AOL cache server out there that apparently hasn't managed to pick up the new version of a page updated on Feb 13th (now that's nuts; usually if a cache server is completely screwed, we can tell the users to wait 24 hours and it should clear up.) The users that hit that server think that we've got mislabeled/mislinked content on our page. And they complain about it. And we blame AOL. And they don't believe us, because AOL is perfect, 'ya know?
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:3, Informative)
I do web development, and I'm inclined to agree. Users (especially the less sophisticated ones) are more likely to blame what they're trying to view than what's allowing them to view it. It's the page that looks wrong, not the browser. Hence, it's the page that's broken.
This has been a damned nuisance on occasion because AOL, with the default client settings, will serve up mangled graphics from their cache, rather than the originals that go with the page. The call that we get isn't "AOL broke your page", it's "your page is broken".
This illustrates another point, that AOL will provide a sub-standard user experience if they feel it's in their best interest to do so. In this case, I really think it is. One wannabe monopoly won't benefit by being beholden to another.
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, what website wouldn't adjust it's pages if not doing so lost visibility to that kind of user base?
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They did this once before, though. If I remember correctly, when AOL made the switch to IE, Netscape had a strong majority of the browser market and IE was still of the very poor quality that you can expect from early Microsoft releases. Websites were targetted to Netscape at the time, there were pages that didn't render right in IE, and yet AOL made the switch.
The other thing to consider is that Mozilla's rendering is downright excellent these days. I haven't had any problems rendering sites with it for a long time now. Are users really going to be getting a lot of error messages after the switch? And even if they do, why would they blame AOL? Years of Windows use has conditioned people to expect errors all the time which they can't do anything about so they shrug their shoulders and move on.
AOL has been testing Mozilla with their Compuserve users for awhile now and the tests have reportedly gone well. I don't think this is a bluff.
Commercial risk? Not really. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2)
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't happen this way. You see, Mozilla is able to render most pages, and if anything is missing, it is often menus used for navigation (because they are based on proprietary IE-extensions). What happens when an AOL user sees such a site? He sees the contents, but has no idea how to browse the site. Who does he blame? The site of course! He thinks the designer of the site is silly not to have placed proper menus in place for navigation. So he takes his business elsewhere.
After all, he is using AOL and everything, so it must be the site's fault! :)
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And with that you're suggesting we should leave it at that and better all go the Microsoft way? AOL is in a position to do this, and now is the best time to do it, because "IE only" websites are few and far between.
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
AOL is already getting it's partners to change their websites such, that they render with mozilla/gecko. Also, why do you think they're announcing this move to another browser in advance? If i were a webmaster of some large site i'd already see to it, that it will look fine for AOL-users when the switch happens (well, i'd have made it work with mozilla anyway, but that's another subject). So even AOLs announcement of the switch will clue some webadmins up, that that "IE only" sign on their site might be a bad idea. Also some of the AOL users might love mozilla just for the fact that you can switch off those pesky automatic popup Windows (if AOL leaves that in), since they make surfing the Web a major pain.
Yes I know Mozillas recent [good] record on standards compliance, but as it stands MS is holding the baton.
And unless someone changes that it will be so forever. MS is "holding the baton" because 99% of websurfers out there use IE. And AOL obviously has the ability to change this. Now you're arguing, that AOL must continue to go with IE because of some sites that are "IE only". But those sites only exist because 99% of the websurfers are using IE, effectively closing the circle. But i think once AOL switched to mozilla those sites will change their policy fast or face some major problems (as in 30% less traffic).
In short, I think this is a bluff on AOLs part, as there's too much commercial risk here, and there's no way AOL is going to take those risks (with a relatively dumb userbase), with the possibility of large user unhappiness.
The alternative is for AOL to make their business dependent on Microsofts IE. Past history has shown, that that it is a bad idea to depend too much on Microsoft Products, because when they want to extend their business into your market it gives them an easy way to kick you out of business and win your customers over.
I think the AOL executives prefer to take a little risk (i don't think it all that big) to just waiting until Microsoft stabs them in the back.
Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content.... (Score:2)
The answer is not very many. Netscape and other browsers probably account for 15% of the market, so e-tailers would have to be nuts to shun that business when it could make all the difference.
So what about non-commercial sites? Well fortunately most of them work just fine as well. I can see AOL having trouble with a handful of IE-only ActiveX/DHTML/VBScript jerks but you can bet that within 6 months of switching to Gecko, most sites will render properly in any browser. Boo hoo for the jerks who stick with VBScript.
Evangelism is the key here. This beta program is giving advanced notice to websites that 34 million people are going to be using an standards compliant browser very soon and site owners damned well better ensure their site works in a standards compliant manner.
Java? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Java? (Score:4, Interesting)
The settlement restricted Microsoft to only being allowed to distribute their old 1997 version of the JVM, and only for the next 5 years... after which Microsoft would not be allowed to distribute Java at all, not even as a download from windowsupdate.
Just seems odd that Sun would press for such a settlement and then later claim it hurt them dramatically.
Re:Java? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Java? (Score:2, Informative)
They want beta testers to try using a series of java sites (links provided by AOL). They all worked flawlessly for me (Java 1.3.02).
Diversity! (Score:5, Insightful)
The best thing that can happen to any industry is diversity. It doesn't matter if any one solution is good or bad, there must be more than one for innovation to occur and the market to work.
Hard as it may be to say, if the market was 90% Unix i'd be pushing for Apple or Amiga DE or even for Windows.
This move will bring back standards awareness for web site builders, and it may help educate users into thinking functionality not menu options.
The remaining step is to keep making alternative versions of other Microsoft offers: not only the browser, but the messaging, the video, the news readers, the single sign-on platforms.
Windows has too strong a hold on the market to be easily taken head-on. Make the user switch applications without switching OS. Soon you will find that the OS is irrelevant.
How much time do you spend looking at the desktop anyway?
Money (Score:2)
Maybe Capital One would quit being the lone holdout of my creditors that don't support Mozilla.
I think this is quite insightful. For me,the only thing that ties me to non-free browsers is doing financial stuff. I would estimate that I save about $200 a year since I began online banking. If financial institutions would begin supporting open standards, not only for web but also for financial software like Quicken, it would be a boon for free software. I can't count the number of people I know that would love to try Mandrake or Redhat but hold back because they can't manage their money with Quicken on it.
To touch the topic, having AOL begin using their open source assets is very promising. Having that number of consumers on the OSS side is not a total advantage, but good nonetheless. Now all we need is an AOL Linux OS. At least something non-Microsoft would begin to be supported on i386.
Re:Money (Score:2)
The MozillaZine blurb (Score:2, Interesting)
by AOL BETA TEAM
"Hello Beta Testers! The Beta Team is happy to announce the start of a new Beta test -- AOL 7.0 with Netscape Gecko. The software used in this test is based on the most recent version of AOL 7.0 with Netscape Gecko as its internal browser. Netscape Gecko is an embeddable browser designed to support open Internet standards, and is used for products like Netscape 6.2 and Instant AOL. This Beta tests the functionality of the AOL 7.0 software with Netscape Gecko.
Please Go to Keyword: Beta and visit the "AOL 7.0 with Netscape Gecko Beta" area, to review the documentation and download the beta software. - AOL Beta Team"
Big move (Score:4, Insightful)
As Lao Tzu said, "the only constant is change."
MSIE vs Mozilla/Gecko (Score:3, Informative)
AOL is making a good move by basing its next generation browser on Gecko/Mozilla.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.9 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 6 browser.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 256MB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional. My conclusive results are as follows:Loading
Mozilla 0.9.9 loaded 17% faster than IE 6 and 21% faster using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)IE 6 loaded 5% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 6 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.Reliability
IE 6 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.Mozilla did not crash during this test.
ConclusionsIE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
Re:MSIE vs Mozilla/Gecko (Score:2)
My experience with Mozilla did not contribute to the adjectives stable and fast.
Load times (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MSIE vs Mozilla/Gecko (Score:3, Funny)
Will Intel Fix their site ?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will Intel Fix their site ?? (Score:2, Informative)
This could be a disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a little worried that this could all end in a bit of a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think that standards are a good thing. They're good for developers because they know what they send out, will be viewable in all clients. They're good for end-users because they can use any client and still get the content. However, there is a problem.
I'm just moved from IE to Opera. For the sole reason that I hate having 15 IE windows open. Thats it. Nothing else and I admit it. However whilst surfing the net doing research I find a good many sites are broken and Opera doesn't show them too well. Hell even my own site doesn't work very well.
In fact, i'm to the point of going back to IE. Why?
Because I want that content and I can't get it. Sure, its not my fault that I can't get the content, after all, they've written bad HTML but from an end-users perspective that isn't the issue. They want that information and their browser won't give it to them. Period.
To the end-user, it doesn't matter if the HTML is badly formed, if people see it not working on browser y and it does on browser x then they will automatically assume that y is broken. ("but x lets me see my page, why can't i on y?", "because the pages are badly written", "well if they're badly written, why can i see them on x?" and so on)
Now of course the standard geek response is "well its their fault they haven't followed standards". Well yes, it is. But it also sucks for the individual who wants the information on that page.
"well then, they should go elsewhere". People don't just go elsewhere. They find a few retailers they consider trustworthy and stick with them. Or what happens if that content isn't available elsewhere? Then you're stuck. It also doesn't help when they see their friends using browser x and having no such problems.
Which means that I've come to the depressing conclusion that AOL might even be forced to return to IE. Or they'll put pressure on Mozilla developers to try and cope with dodgy HTML.
This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2)
For sites that do screw up, there's always that handy little "Switch between author mode and user mode" button in the corner of every document that will fall back to a perfectly usable unstyled page.
And when I come across the odd site that overloads on DHTML or whatever, I just load IE, or go away. Spending 3 seconds to load IE, copy the URL and paste it into IE isn't exactly the hardest of workarounds.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, while Opera's layout engine and CSS support is excellent, it's DOM (Javascript) capabilities are very poor.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2)
Have tried the same sites with Mozilla instead of just Opera? I only use Opera occasionally, so I don't really know how it does, but Mozilla has been pretty good for quite some time.
I think web developers are slowly moving to W3C standard HTML because new IE and Netscape both support them. It's easy code to a common subset of HTML that works on both IE and Gecko - no more browser sniffing. That makes life a lot easier.
In my case, I remember running into IE specific web sites quite often a year ago. I don't think I've had that problem at all in the last couple of months. My on-line bank even showed a warning that they didn't support NS6 (even though it worked fine) up until a couple of months ago. But with their latest site re-design the warning is gone.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2)
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is: Market Share
No company is going to leave its web site unavailable to 34 million people, not when they can make the site standards-compliant and work in both IE and AOL. Netscape 4.x is a different matter, granted - you almost had to have two copies of your site for a while. But if AOL uses Gecko, then the web's back to only one site for everyone, and all of us using non-IE browsers will benefit from that. AOL's 34 million newbies could be the best thing that's happened to the web in the last couple years (betcha never saw that coming :).
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:3, Interesting)
It will happen. Anyone not blinded by the OSS glare can see that coming a mile off. Netscape and Mozilla will irreparably fork as soon as AOL 8 is fully in place.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me a few months back I went to site that required FLASH(since it was big co I will not advertise their site). There was no other way to view the site without FLASH. So I sent them a little email asking them if they were promoting flash or their product. The site now supports HTML. I do not think that my email made them change their attitude but sales would have a hard time explaining to management why they lost a client due to flash.
I think that this would apply to any website. Companies are creating websites to make $$$$. If they feel they are loosing sales trust me they will support standards.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:3, Informative)
There are a couple of things to take into consideration here:
For the most part, web designers crave standards. The absolute number one bitch of web designers is having to code for the quirks in different browsers. By having one of the major players in the market switch over to standards compliance, a *huge* load is taken off of the development time. Developers have been clamoring [webstandards.org] for more compliance for years. (And face it: IE is a very standards compliant browser; making the switch will all not be that drastic.) While it might take some time to make the switch, it will be well, WELL worth it to do so because you can just code to the standard.
AOL is in the business of delivering content over the internet. Currently the tool used by their customers to view this content is controlled by a competitor: Microsoft. It just doesn't make business sense for AOL to be dependant upon MS for such a core element of their business model.
AOL is a huge entity with enough clout to pressure commercial sites to change their ways. If a significant percentage of your customer base are AOL users, and AOL has changed a few things, you will either change your site or lose the customer. Most businesses will change their site.
In short, I think this is absolutely a win-win situation for the industry and the consumer. AOL is less dependant upon MS, developers are (more) happy because they don't have to code for Nutscrape specific quirks, and the end user will get a more consistent browsing experience.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2, Interesting)
Conversely, I can say that they want that information, but the site fails to deliver it to them (because it doesn't show up "in AOL"). So they go elsewhere instead.
It could actually strike both ways, but since they are "using AOL", my guess is that most people will think there is something wrong with the site and not with AOL.
If the user doesn't go elsewhere, he or she might write the webmaster and ask "what's wrong with your page all of a sudden"? The webmaster will then perhaps say that "we are not compatible with AOL, you have to download IE". It is far easier to just open another page than to start downloading the latest version of IE. (Yes, IE might already be installed on the PC, but the regular AOL user might not know that there's a world outside AOL - believe me, I've seen it many times).
"This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind."
Or they all mail the webmaster and then get angry because they are told to use something "not AOL", which is basically bad business for the site.
Doing nothing will be a disaster (Score:2)
Also i find it notable, that you didn't make an attempt at getting your site standards compliant when you fond out it won't render properly with other browsers (at least you don't say so). You prefer to switch back to IE (cluttering your screen with IE-Windows again) and apparently try to convince the rest of the world to do likewise.
Your argumentation ultimately leads to the conclusion, to accept the Microsoft way and forever follow in Microsofts footsteps (either by just using IE, or by following their crappy implementation of html). The longterm perspective of this is to let Microsoft have their way. But that is not a good idea, because AOL realized, that the Microsoft Way may well lead to their own ruin (when MS decides to use their leverage to extend into the provider-business). So AOL better does something about it while they can.
AOL might "save face" with this.... (Score:2)
Having two big web browsers installed and trying to have the system decide which is the default may cause some compatibility problems, and I don't think end users--especially the AOL crowd--wants to deal with THAT! (I think people forget that AOL users are often not as computer-savvy as the normal readers of Slashdot.)
You'll be a Mozilla user by the end of the weekend (Score:3, Informative)
OBOY do I know what you mean, and that's exactly how I used to browse. I'm about to make your life a WHOLE lot easier.
Go download Mozilla and install it. Go to Edit->Preferences. Double-click on Navigator. Click on Tabbed Browsing. Select "Load links in the background" and "Middle-click or control-click of links in a Web page". Also select any of the other boxes that you think you might be interesting. Click OK.
Now go to any site you browse frequently. Use control-click or middle click to open new tabs in the background whilst your main site window does not change.
After two minutes with this feature, you will not be able to live without it. Guaranteed.
Re:This could be a disaster (Score:2)
Mozilla is very picky, but it (and IE) support a number of W3C standards that Opera doesn't.
UK Natwest Slashdotters - do your bit! (Score:5, Informative)
However, the major hold up is that my bank refuses to allow me to use it - the site became inaccessible to modern Netscape/Mozilla browsers curiously enough at about the same time the whole thing went .asp-based.
UK Natwest-using Slashdotters - do your bit! I have, I've mailed their feedback section asking when a Netscape greater than 4.x will be supported, pointing out the new AOL announcement. I added Mozilla in too, but this is a mainstream place and hammering on at their Netscape support is likely to get you further.
Query form is here [natwest.com] and then select "Feedback" from the drop-down.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:UK Natwest Slashdotters - do your bit! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:UK Natwest Slashdotters - do your bit! (Score:2, Informative)
One question: (Score:4, Funny)
Could this mean a AOL client for LINUX?
Re:One question: (Score:2, Informative)
No. As they have stated many times, there are far too many possible configurations of Linux for them to try and support.
Re:One question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Support also is difficult since there are so many distribution specific problems that may prevent a program from working as intended. Imagine a user calling and asking "I can't load any site with AOL 7 on linux" or a similarly vague question. A good heuristic to approaching such a client would be to figure out whether the network is configured correctly. On windows that is easy since all versions of windows have a control panel with network settings and there are only minor differences between the different versions. On linux each distribution allows multiple ways of configuring the network and there are likely to be significant differences between each distribution and even among different versions of the same distribution. Almost certainly a proper solution to any problems with the configuration will require editing text files and work on the commandline. Not a problem for advanced users but a nightmare for the average AOL helpdesk staff and AOL user.
Re:One question: (Score:2)
Re:One question: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an economic thing called "marginal cost." To release a client for YipeeOS, they need to write the client, debug the client, test it on a wide variety of hardware/software configurations, and then distribute the new client alongside the AOL client for Windows (increasing burning time and making the install process ever so slightly more complicated). AOL's current policy is to provide free tech support to all customers, so they also have to write a knowledge database for that client, and train at least a few techs in using it.
It was worthwhile for them to release a Macintosh client, and at some point the beancounters will have to admit that it's worthwhile to support Linux. At the moment, I think AOL's best option would be to release an unsupported Linux client (for download rather than CD-based distribution). I know there are people out there who would use it.
Re:One question: (Score:2)
I believe that Macintosh had the original AOL client. Then at some point they made a Windows one, because Windows was becoming the "standard".
My point is that there was never a time when AOL said, "well, we need to create a Macintosh client", because that client always existed. They just had to deem it worth maintaining(which they do at a slower pace than the windows version), and that's not as expensive.
mark
Slashdot Code of Conduct (Score:2, Funny)
2) AOL users are all morons.
3) If AOL or its users do something that goes against Microsoft, then they're suddenly GOOD.
4) Be nice to Junis
At least (Score:2)
This Will Show Who Really Has The Power (Score:5, Insightful)
If AOL really does switch browsers, then some interestings may happen that will show us who really has the power to control the Internet. The key issue is whether or not the owners of the non-conforming web sites will fix their sites. If they do, then that would prove that Microsoft does control the net (yet). On the other hand, if the owners of non-conforming sites do not fix their pages, then that proves Microsoft is already in defacto control.
Now some readers are probably dismissing this as too simplistic:
Can AOL really change the net? You gotta be kidding! It's not that simple!
I'm not kidding. I think that it really does come down to AOL vs. MS. The Internet is driven by content, and if a abrupt change by one company (AOL) can reverse the non-conformance trend that Microsoft has been pushing for several years, then that will illustrate just how influencial AOL (by way of it's web brower) can be.
Of course, if AOL's current test is just a bluff to try to improve their business position with Microsoft, then that will prove that MS is already in control.
And that would mean that the sucess of .NET is almost certain.
here are the features that aol will add.... (Score:2, Informative)
Thank god they are fixing the lame-ass bookmark organizer.
Serious software companies don't ship open source (Score:3, Interesting)
This guy is apparently unaware of that AOL already relies on OSS like AOLserver.
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't mean it needed to be able to host activeX itself.
Sam
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
The interesting thing about this is - it's binary interface compatible with the Trident APIs: ie it's the same as the internet explorer ActiveX control. This means if you already use the IE ActiveX you can simply replace it with the Gecko one without changing any code (in theory). Hopefully once Moz penetration goes up, you'll start seeing more of this, but to be honest I doubt it.
Unless it's possible to replace the IE Control with the Gecko one transparently why should apps switch from a rendering engine that is guaranteed to be there, to one that isn't? Makes no sense. So this is good, but for now not all that helpful.
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Actually, outside of coporate intranets, neither have I, with one exception: MS Windows Update. That is honestly the only site I have ever been to with ActiveX components on it. And that kind of track record is fine by me.
I simply don't trust running ActiveX components anyway. I equate it to getting into a submarine with screen doors on it; its just not a good idea.
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Adobe Acrobat
Windows Media
Quicktime
Real Player
Macromedia Flash
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Re:Roll on activeX (Score:2)
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:4, Troll)
No IE until version 3.0 ? you missed something. (Score:2)
If people force me to use windows, then please let it be NT 4.0 its the best windows around if you ask me.
Quazion.
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm... They started this project in November of 1998 when they announced the acquisition of Netscape.
So it's taken just over 3 years to get to a beta stage. Fast in geological time keeping, but certainly not what we used to call internet time.
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
You also have to remember that this browser is competing with IE6 which has taken HOW LONG? If anyone knows me at all, then they know how much I bitch about how Linux couldn't hold a candle to MS products on the desktop.
I downloaded Mozilla on Monday and I was surprised. There are some things in there that even IE doesn't have. The stability is great. Tabbed browsing is great. Holy shit - I might actually switch.
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
*cough*
Realizing it is early, I'll only say this:
Mozilla is the finest web browser, commercial, non-commercial or otherwise, that I have ever used, even at version 0.9.9
The Javascript console alone is worth the minimal effort required to install it. Add the other features (tabs, cookies, custom Javascript) and it just puts Mozilla way ahead.
More money wont help (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering Microsoft most likely spent double the money and took twice as long to get IE6 to the level that its at. Lets see, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 years. Mozilla 1,2,3,4 years.
4 years vs 7 years, Mozilla did in 4 years what took Microsoft 7 years without the hundreds of millions of dollars Microsoft most likely put into IE.
So now that AOL is fully backing Mozilla, if Mozilla were to get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding (which at this point its the best so why bother?) It wouldnt speed up development because Mozilla is pretty much the best.
Whats left to develop? All AOL can/should do is make the code 100 percent bug free, optimize everything, perhaps improve the lame XUL or replace it with native interfaces for Windows, Linux and so on. Now that the money is availible theres no need to use slow as hell XUL.
Last the Mozilla team can make sure their browser supports ALL the standards and has the fastest rendering engine, Mozilla 2.0 can improve, but with a strong bug free very well written base, IE is going to be left in the dust no matter how much money they try to spend to fix bugs in their poorly designed and badly written IE.
IE is horribly designed, its worse than netscape, its been patched over and over and over year after year until it became good, also its been intergrated into windows itself so it doesnt seem bloated.
I think this is the end of days for IE.
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
I couldn't find -1 clueless. Then I looked for -1 uninformed. Nope. Not there. I puzzled this over in my mind and troll doesn't seem to fit, nor flamebait, and overrated is.. well over-rated.
It just doesn't tell the reader that you obviously know nothing about the Mozilla project. That it has been funded by AOL for years. That most of the initial "farting around" was done by paid, corporate programmers and that the OS community made a lot of useful contributions. Your entire assertation that now there is money behind it completely falls apart because there has always been money behind it.
The reason you see AOL jumping on the bandwagon now is because, imo, they couldn't get a deal done with MS. For years, they've kept waving the threat that they would move off of IE and it is time to put their money where their mouth is now that they are not being given any real estate on the XP desktop.
Next time do a little research. Just like that moderator who upped you should have done before wasting a point on your post.
Re:things happen faster when there's money around (Score:2)
Re:It doesnt matter anyways... (Score:2)
People will change their sites to fit the proper demographic. If their logs start to show that a large chunk of their hits are coming from Mozilla, they will make a change in their sites, or they will face losing customers.
If they are smart, they will make sure their site works in the browsers of their target audience. At the very least, they will make sure the site degrades smoothly for Moz.
Re:It doesnt matter anyways... (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, if you want to bug Capital One about their poor support for Mozilla/Netscape, send an email over to media.relations@capitalone.com.
I sent them an email this morning. Cheers to the low interest rate card. Cheers to the Frequent flyer miles and great customer service. Jeers to the lousy browser support.
Re:It doesnt matter anyways... (Score:2)
Re:hypocrisy (Score:2)
We would probably have said "Great, Microsoft are finally following open standards."
But that is not likely to happen, ever, even though MS (or anyone) is perfectly free to use the Gecko codebase.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:2)
Even if you hate AOL so much that you won't even download your own Mozilla source and build it, this is still good news for you. If AOL does start using Gecko, it would be the BEST NEWS EVER for Konqueror and Opera. A lot of broken Web sites would need to clean up their act, which helps everyone who want to see standards compliant sites.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:2)
Yes, AOL is a huge behemoth, but in this case not a proprietary one. If I grok Mozilla rightly, the Gecko engine is what decides how to display html/xml. Since it follows the standards better than IE, it will lead to pressure for a more standard-compliant web. Had Microsoft also adopted Gecko, it would have led to the same pressures.
Of course, Microsoft would never actually do that, because they'd have a tough time spinning the implication that their technology was inferior to a competitor's. Also, the IE rendering engine is supposedly too inte-muh-grated to be ripped out of the OS like that.
Finally, the fact is that Gecko is open source, which means that anyone, anytime, can fork the code and create a competitive new browser. This leads to competition in the marketplace, which leads to goodness all around.
Re:hypocrisy wait for the other shoe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UMM... (Score:2)
Some customers are going to switch to the new browser. Some are going to install it, then use IE anyways. Some will try to browse with a Win32 version of Lynx.
Re:UMM... (Score:2)
Re:UMM... (Score:2)
Re:But is it Mozilla? (Score:2)
Re:But is it Mozilla? (Score:2)