Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Netscape The Internet IT

Netscape 7.2 To Be Released August 3rd 263

Following up a story from May, linux2004 writes "for those who thought Netscape was dead after firing all their staff and spinning Mozilla off into a non-profit foundation, then think again. It was announced a while back that Netscape would continue releases of their browser suite and now the release date has been confirmed as August 3rd as a free download or by buying a CD. I don't think it'll take the attention away from Firefox but will be a decent upgrade for those using Netscape 7.1. The 7.2 release will be based on Mozilla 1.7 and will probably have the usual Netscape additions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netscape 7.2 To Be Released August 3rd

Comments Filter:
  • Good. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:53AM (#9820725)
    Maybe my stoopid admins will upgrade my machie from Netscape 4 to the new version...
    • by cuzality ( 696718 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:43AM (#9821078) Journal

      will probably have the usual Netscape additions
      Yeah! And not only AIM, but Viewpoint Media Player, and Winamp, and "FREE AOL!" icons for my desktop and my Start Menu...

      I can't wait.
      • But wait, it asks you if you want to install all those things! Just uncheck them. Oh wait, it installs them all over the place regardless of what you click.
      • by DrCash ( 800431 )
        That's what I like about Mozilla's Firefox, which I've been using for about a month now (previously using Opera, but Firefox I have found is far superior). With Firefox, you download a really light, simple browser. Then, if you want additional functionality, go to their extensions page and simply add-in what you want to add. With Netscape, they give you all this stuff you don't need - email app, netscape composer, etc. Although the Winamp and AIM apps are useful, and I do use that - just not Netscape's vers
    • Wow, this suprises me.
      Can you actually still connect to any real pages?
      • I also use 4.7, and it works reasonably well. I do get warnings that "This site only supports browsers made after the dinosaurs died", but Slashdot still works.
  • Oh man! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doomie ( 696580 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:55AM (#9820737) Homepage

    Netspace is not dead!
    Doom III is out!

    And both of them on the same day... Crazy... This must be some conspiracy against slashdot users :)
    • Don't worry man, Duke Nukem Forever is still scheduled to be released "when it's done". The end is nigh but not that close.
    • Re:Oh man! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jav1231 ( 539129 )
      I've been using Firefox. I can't possibly imagine why I'd want Netscape. I wonder what the percentage of users on Firefox/Mozilla vs. Netscape would be? I guess I just don't understand why they don't just move to the Mozilla name completely.
      • Occaisionally you will get that odd website that will not work with Moz because the admins code to only allow IE or Netscape.

        I imagine AOL wants to keep Netscape around for thier budget ISP.
      • by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @10:50AM (#9821755)

        Corporate execs are more comfortable with a known brand name. Even though Mozilla (and FF, Camino, K-Meleon, etc) are based on the same code, they are not "Netscape". When execs are made aware of the faults and deficiencies of IE, they may think "I wish it was still like the old days, when we could at least choose between IE and Netscape." Lo and behold, here's Netscape 7.2. If you mention Opera or Firefox to them, you'd get blank stares.

        Also, some of these execs want an all-in-one solution, not a perceived patchwork of FF+TB+whatever to meet basic internet needs.

        Plus, "Mozilla" sounds like something only a geek could love. "Netscape" sounds like a polished product, like the marketing team actually spent more than 5 seconds to think of it. That's important to execs.

  • why does the post read like this is the first NS release ever since Mozilla was founded?
  • I wonder if there will be a new addition to the Book of Mozilla. The Book of Mozilla, 8:3
  • The best idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ( 782137 ) <joe AT joe-baldwin DOT net> on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:56AM (#9820749) Homepage Journal
    A better idea would probably be a Netscape branded Firefox. That would kick ass.
    • Re:The best idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nuggetman ( 242645 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @08:58AM (#9820771) Homepage
      meh, netscape and kickass were words that went together in 1996

      now i think netscape, i think bloat

      mozilla is today what netscape was years ago, and when you add the netscape monicker, that just brings the image of quality downward
      • mozilla is today what netscape was years ago

        Sorry, but "netscape" always suffered from bloat. We don't mention it much here because of the intense IE hate mongering. But bloated it was, bloated it is. Netscape was never anything but bloat, but it was "our" bloat, not "M$" bloat. Besides, since "years ago" you where doing wheelies in the street on your bike with a banana seat and a sissy bar, exactly what version of NN where you talking about? NN6?

        • Re:Right. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by punkass ( 70637 )
          How about version 4.0, where they re-wrote nearly the entire suite (this was the first of the "Communicator" suites). For me, that was first release that took a step in the wrong direction in terms of bloat and speed, and I had been using Navigator since v.1.1.
    • Re:The best idea (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PoprocksCk ( 756380 )
      I totally agree. But it shouldn't just contain Firefox. I think Netscape 8.0 should give you the option to install several components, just like always. I think it should have Netscape Navigator, based on Firefox 1.0, Netscape Mail based on Thunderbird, and Netscape Composer based on Nvu. I think they should scrap the AIM addition -- most people that use AIM use it already, and wouldn't be willing to switch to a half-baked Netscape-integrated version. Then again, maybe they could give the option to ins
      • I and some other people I know PREFER the Netscape integrated AIM. It doesn't throw popups at you by default, doesn't try to automatically log you in on startup, and looks better.

        The integrated AIM is the selling point that will get me to upgrade to Netscape 7.2 from Mozilla 1.7.

        A Netscape branded Firefox would be great. First of all because Firefox is a pretty stupid name, and regular users don't remember far back enough to associate Netscape with 'bloat' all the time. Making Firefox 1.0 The next Netscap
        • I and some other people I know PREFER the Netscape integrated AIM. It doesn't throw popups at you by default, doesn't try to automatically log you in on startup, and looks better.

          What the hell are you talking about? I've been using AIM for years. It's trivial (read: very very very simple, even for a chimp) to turn off the auto-start, auto-login options. Infact, two checkboxes sit immediately over the 'Sign In!' button. It's easy:
          • [ ] Save password [ ] Auto-login

          Just uncheck both. That's one problem s

    • Re:The best idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by endx7 ( 706884 )
      A better idea would probably be a Netscape branded Firefox. That would kick ass.

      Naw, a better idea is just to use firefox in the first place. Then you don't have to worry about what netscape is doing. ;P
    • As much as AOL loves but suites, I doubt it'll happen. Although I'm sure they'll continue to leech off of Mozilla for quite a while. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think they should still donate to the foundation if they are going to base their major freakin browser off of it.
      • "but suites" should be "big software suites"
        That sounded kinda funny though.
      • i have a feeling this new version of Netscape wasn't exactly planned, and thrown together at the last minute.

        It seems to me that AOL gave up on Netscape after the last release, just because MSIE had so much marketshare.

        Wait, what's this? A bunch of news reports advising people not to use MSIE anymore? I'm sure AOL saw this and decided to switch gears, and fast.

        We all know that the new Netscape is just basically Mozilla with a bunch of advertising type of stuff and AOL software bundled up, but people li
  • August 3rd? (Score:2, Funny)

    by dykofone ( 787059 )
    I found a list of some of the new features:

    - First-person browser: Seventh installment in the ground-breaking NETSCAPE series

    - Enhanced storyline; winner of multiple awards for graphics,sound,and action

    - Spine-chilling, bloodcurdling, altogether unfriendly environment

    - Music by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails

    - One of the most highly anticipated titles of 2004

  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:00AM (#9820781)
    Give me a break. Most uninformed people (which is the majority of people in this world) do not have a clue what Firefox is. These same people probably do know what Netscape is.

    Netscape might not be as advanced and bleeding edge as Firefox or Mozilla but at least it has the name recognition that the non-geeks require.
    • Firefox is getting so much press now that I'm sure a lot more people know what it is compared to, say, even just a month ago.

      But it's still good that a browser with long time name recognition is still in the race and it gives people choice, and choice is good if it's standards compliant choice. Many web stats show that Mozilla is above it's Netscape branded cousin now in market share but I still know people who were happy with 7.1, these people preferred a suite and perhaps Netscape use their marketing dol
      • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:32AM (#9821006)
        Firefox is getting so much press now that I'm sure a lot more people know what it is compared to, say, even just a month ago.

        While this is very true you forget that most people don't get their news from the online sources that we (those that actually care to stay up on the news and CE) do.

        I don't know a single person outside of my more computer literate friends that knows that IE has vulnerabilities or what Firefox is. In fact, a quick check through my webserver logs finds that the just about the only people using FireFox are those that are coming from slashdot URLs.
    • I'm not sure how true that is anymore. After the recent IE debacles, just about every news source (printed, online, radio, tv) was talking about alternative browsers for a while. Firefox and Opera were always the two mentioned. I think more people have heard of it (although still probably never tried it) than you think.

    • I suppose that even Netscape its not a known brand (ie by average users). Most of current Internet users are either post-Netscape dominance or didn't care that much and don't remember.

      Summarizing: Netscape nowadays is almost as minoritary as Firefox for Joe user.

      [Writing this post on Mozilla 1.7 BTW]
    • Uhm no. Most people these days don't know what Netscape is. Those who do remember Netscape are those who have been using a computer for a while. However, when they heard "Netscape" they immediately think "buggy, bloated, slow", etc. The name Netscape will have no impact on most people, but will have a negative impact on most people who do know Netscape.
      • However, when they heard "Netscape" they immediately think "buggy, bloated, slow", etc. The name Netscape will have no impact on most people, but will have a negative impact on most people who do know Netscape.

        No one that is an average user thinks about "buggy, bloated, and slow." Average people just don't care about that. They care about what is easy to use and doesn't require any thinking.
  • Glad to hear it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bpowell423 ( 208542 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:00AM (#9820783)
    I use Netscape 7.1 right now, rather than Mozilla or Firefox because I have some online financial sites that recognize Netscape and IE, but refuse to work with Mozilla. I refuse to use IE whenever possible, so, I'm glad to hear that Netscape keeps marching on.
  • by nayigeta ( 792068 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:01AM (#9820787) Homepage Journal
    Otherwise, I do not see a reason to move away from Firefox.

    Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Thunderbird will support Netscape mail, being proprietory.

    • When did netscape mail become proprietary? I seem to recall that Netscape Messenger used Unix mbox-format mailfolders... At least until 4.x when I was moving mail folders between the two on a regular basis...

      I stopped using Netscape/Mozilla for mail many moons ago, tho', and while I believe that Mozilla Mail still uses mbox files, I'm not sure about Netscape... Or Thunderbird, come to think of it...

      • When did netscape mail become proprietary? I seem to recall that Netscape Messenger used Unix mbox-format mailfolders...

        He means accessing Netscape webmail through the mail client. Netscape webmail is accessible like a normal mail account through Netscape 6 and above but it's not available through standard IMAP.

        You're right Netscape, Mozilla and Thunderbird store messages in the standard 'mbox' format
    • There are actually several nice things Netscape has that Mozilla doesn't:

      - support for the extended IMAP for accessing free accounts (as you said)

      - support for syncing your address book with your account address book (very handy to keep your address book on all your computers in sync)

      - on Linux Netscape 7.X has always shipped with extra fonts, which IMHO are very decent, and were better than any X fonts a few years back (unfortunately these fonts only seem to be available
  • by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:03AM (#9820800) Homepage
    OK, I'm mostly pro-open source but this one is interesting. What happened here is that a company had a product, fired the staff developing that product, and then still released a new version utilising the continuing free labour of those who it had put out of a job.

    Bit of a cautionary tale perhaps?


    • What happened here is that a company had a product, fired the staff developing that product, and then still released a new version utilising the continuing free labour of those who it had put out of a job.

      It's called outsourcing.

    • by finkployd ( 12902 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:21AM (#9820927) Homepage
      Yes, don't try to make money writing someone as general as a web browser. Like OSes, Word Processors, ftp clients, etc they are now commodities (unless you are Microsoft). Go find something someone actually needs and is willing to pay money for and write that.

    • by nlinecomputers ( 602059 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:27AM (#9820972)
      As I understand this Mozilla was paid by AOL to set this up for them. Not that this changed any of the procedures to create Netscape. Ever since Mozilla was founded they have crated Mozilla first and then rebranded and added the custom Netscape code on top after they rolled out Mozilla. One of the reasons the 1.7 codebase was locked is because Netscape was based on it. All the past locked branches have been timed with Netscape launches. Ex: Moz1.4 = NS7.1
    • It's better than a company that had a product, fired the staff developing that product, and left everyone hanging and slave to a product like Internet Explorer. I'd say that what they did was commendable, and it only took a couple of years to fix the pile of crap that was the original Netscape code...
    • Cautionary tale? Not at all. The developers know that their contributions may be used by companies. I see no difference to whether it's their ex-employer or other companies that do it. The developers aren't forced to continue contributing to Mozilla after AOL stops employing them to do that.
    • They did lay off their workforce, and even if AOL tries to re-hire them I don't think anyone would take their job back.

      However, it looks like AOL have contracted some key foundation staff [] (see mention of the guidebook - he also wrote the Mozilla 1.7 Guidebook [] too) to help with this release, plus there's some ex-Netscape staff still working on other projects within AOL that could help out.
    • by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @10:45AM (#9821713)

      OK, I'm mostly pro-open source but this one is interesting. What happened here is that a company had a product, fired the staff developing that product, and then still released a new version utilising the continuing free labour of those who it had put out of a job.

      That's an interesting point. However, you're cutting out a whole lot of Netscape history. By the time Netscape released an Open Source codebase, it was already a doomed company. Creating the Mozilla project was a final defiant action. AOL's purchase of Netscape was both added life and final blow to what we knew as Netscape. It was an indication of Netscape's position as well as a corporate shift that caused a mass exodus of Netscape talent. But at the same time, it did present some continued corporate sponsorship to the Mozilla project.

      The parent's timeline makes it sound like the decline of Netscape's employment started at, or was a direct result of the Open Source process. But this decline was already well underway. And it could even be argued that the Mozilla project maintained value in even a small number of Netscape jobs.

      There is one major issue that would be easy to overlook. If Netscape had remained proprietary, it would have simply faded away with so many other codebases wiped out by the dot-boom collapse. And as many of us know, a failed product is not a great source of employment in itself.
  • Is Netscape Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:05AM (#9820825)
    This is a rather odd pattern. Sun gives OOo as a free [no $ - N$ for the rest of this] alternative to Word and sells a slightly more advanced version called StarOffice...

    Now Netscape is doing basically the same thing. Add in the other Linux vendors that offer something N$ and another with a price tag and spinoff of the old business model (lower optioned item at cost/loss to hook 'em and high-profit items to upgrade them later) is created.

    The real question for the software world is if this is a viable model in the long run?

    In OSS, there are quite a few individuals that keep the N$ items going, but is there much incentive for the priced offerings (other than businesses for support/peace of mind)?

    It will be interesting to watch this trend unfold

    • by mcsmurf ( 757095 )
      And how many paid developers work on OOo hired by Sun? None, 12 or even more :)? See, from AOL (former Netscape) nobody is working on Mozilla anymore.
    • by azaroth42 ( 458293 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:10AM (#9820851) Homepage
      You mean like ID gave away the first levels of DOOM and then sold a more advanced version (ie with more levels)?

      This is hardly a new model.

    • Thing is Sun isn't necessarily just pusing for people to OOo -> StarOffice, its also interested in getting businesses to switch to OOo/StarOffice then moving over to JDS
    • Not really the same -

      Netscape is still released freely while Star Office is released as commercial software. The only reason Star Office is commercial, though, is because there was a demand for both additional fonts (which are licensed at cost) and support. The only reason Netscape is free is because MS forced them to give up their shareware model by bundling a 'free' browser with Windows. Microsoft soaked the cost by creating a non-free upgrade to Windows 98 (98SE) and hiking the price by $20.

      All of t
  • Firefox launch (Score:3, Interesting)

    by levell ( 538346 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:06AM (#9820827) Homepage
    I'm not sure whether it'll help or hinder the Firefox launch, I don't really think it'll have much effect either way. What might do though is agreeing to advertise it [] so if you're webmaster of a high traffic site or have a say in what goes into a dead-tree magazine click the link...
  • I know I don't. I am grateful to them for the mozilla project, don't get me wrong, but netscape is little more than an AOL whore.

    It's akin to MS taking the latest mozilla, turning it into IE.
  • I rather like the idea that Netscape is still around. Back in my "Internet Explorer" days, Netscape seemed almost a joke. IE did everything that NS did, and it was pre-installed!

    Now that the WWW is a scarier place, Mozilla is much more comforting to me than IE, but I miss some of the ease of IE when it came to the ability to play some of the "multimedia" out there.

    Netscape was just as effective as IE when it came to that sort of thing, and if they can bring the "full flavor" back to the internet without

  • Expect :

    Bigger, slower executable
    HTML rendering/validation differences from *all* previous versions
    More pain in developing webpages/sites, since there will be yet another browser in the market, and the yuppies in marketing and sales will scream their throats off for "compatibility" with it
    • by Denyer ( 717613 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:19AM (#9820914)
      ...this could be a damn good thing. The non-technical people in marketing and sales probably remember Netscape, so if anything a slight shift towards standards-compliant code which works in more browsers is likely.

      That's as long as Netscape don't introduce additional bugs into their branded version, of course.

    • More pain in developing webpages/sites, since there will be yet another browser in the market, and the yuppies in marketing and sales will scream their throats off for "compatibility" with it

      Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape are all standards compliant browsers you don't have to design your website with any special code to achieve full compatibility with them. You would only have a problem if you have a non-standards compliant website, then you *would* have to rewrite it. But hey if you decided to have a non-sta
  • by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@xmsn[ ]nl ['et.' in gap]> on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:23AM (#9820939)
    I'm all for choice in the browser market, but why bother fielding 3 browsers, all based on the same code? AFAI can see, the functionality of all three could be achieved with a basic browser plus plugins/extensions/installation options. What's the reasoning behind The Way Things Are?
    • by kryptkpr ( 180196 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:40AM (#9821058) Homepage
      Mozilla - Bloated everything and the kitchen sink browser+mail+news..

      Netscape - Same as above, but full of AOL branding.. built-in AIM, and all of their other bullshit.

      FireFox - A lightweight, fast, extendable browser that's right for 98% of people who just watch to ditch IE.
      • So create an installer where "the kitchen sink" is a number of installation options. ISTR old Netscape versions that had this.
        As it is now, there are some weird differences, with Firefox missing some options that Mozilla has (e.g. "loop animations once") which make me use Mozilla even though I don't need the kitchen sink. IANAP (=Programmer), but the current situation could easily lead to duplicated effort.
        • the mozilla net installer has this. While it does include some unnessesary code, just installing the browser isn't all that large. Mozilla I believe is still planning on truly integrating firefox and thunderbird and whatnot, so that having them all installed seperatly will interact just like the monolithic mozilla. When this integration is complete, expect to see a single installer like the one you are asking for.
  • This is good news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PaulJS ( 29481 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @09:26AM (#9820964) Homepage
    This is brilliant news there's still some web sites I know that say they support Netscape and not Firefox, if this can get the Netscape marketshare up until Firefox becomes a household name (and it's on its way - there's a lot of marketing planned around the 1.0 release) then it'll encourage webmasters to fix their bugs.

    Also it means there's a recent secure browser that people can switch to from IE if the pre-1.0 version number puts people off Firefox (I know the Mozilla suite is 1.7 but they never really did aim that one at end users and doesn't have the new extension management stuff Firefox will have).

    If you look at the copyright notice in the Netscape Store article linked to in the story you'll also notice that the store is run by MozSource which is the retail arm of the Mozilla Foundation [].
  • bloated (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    netscape is bloated and useless now that mozilla is out. firefox is picking up a huge amount of support and it's the best browser on the net.
    • Re:bloated (Score:3, Informative)

      by PaulJS ( 29481 )
      Yes, firefox is the best for most people, but it still may not suit everyone. There's reasons some people may install netscape:

      - They've always used it, happy with it and don't want to change even though there's obvious benefits (the same sorta people who still use IE) - at least Netcape is standards compliant.
      - Some people prefer the suite to standalone apps, Netscape builds on Mozilla by adding common plugins which make it easier for the normal user.
  • I'd say any Mozilla after about 1.0 would be an upgrade for Netscape, as it would remove a bunch of advertising and other junk I'd be happier without.

    We offer NS 6 on our stations here in addition to the unremovable IE. Next time the images are updated, I'm going to lobby hard to replace it with Firefox current.current no matter what, and never look back.

    Honestly. Netscape threw in their hand...why are they still at the table?
  • Who and where is this Netscape build being made? Is it someone at Sun?

    I would like to see versions of Netscape 7.2 for both Tru64 and SGI IRIX, but I doubt it will happen. If I knew who to contact, I would at least try to argue my case.

    Mozilla is generally fine, but there are still those who want "their netscape".

    Perhaps I should just change Mozilla to the modern theme and use the Netcape throbber, they'd never know the difference!
  • This is probably a useless release to most /. readers, as we already know about Mozilla Seamonkey (aka everything but the kitchen sink) and then Firefox and Thunderbird, all of which are more regularly updated and less AOL-whoring.

    What this release is REALLY good for is for those mothers, grandmothers, and other uninterested people who know what Netscape is but can't be bothered to try this 'other' lizard. Arguably this market is small, as you can slip Mozilla right by them pretty easily anyway, but I'm s
    • Re:Useless (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cro Magnon ( 467622 )
      It's not useless to me. I use Mozilla at home, but at work, I'm stuck with Netscape. And if NS wasn't around, I'd have to use that M$ browser that sounds like a scream (and causes them).
  • by tabdelgawad ( 590061 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @10:17AM (#9821398)
    That way we wouldn't have had to go through the 'Phoenix-Firebird-Firefox' saga. I seriously doubt AOL is currently making any money on the 'Netscape' brand, but a Firefox-renamed-Netscape would actually have a chance of gaining some market share.

    It's probably still not too late ...
    • I'd say it was too late. Netscape was turned into an ISP as well as being a major content portal. Would AOL want to lose their ISP customers and page hits by giving the Netscape brand to the Mozilla Foundation?

      If you say then they'd keep their customers and portal but allow Mozilla to brand their browser 'Netscape' then effectively they'd then be relying on Netscape for their marketing and you'd suffer from the problem of having to track down download links in the confusing mess that is their portal []
  • FF 0.9 has some sort of threading problem or something so that you cannot have more than 4 tabbed windows downloading at the same time. If you do have more than 4 at once, they all stop downloading.

    So I use netscape. Both NS and FF are better designed than MSIE, however.
  • With all of the press that's been run lately about the security holes with IE/OE this could not be better news for Gecko, Netscape and Mozilla. While I agree that most people will still ignore it and click on their little IE button, I would not be surprised if a lot of organizations' IT departments begin implementing Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, what have you.

    I only say this since I run a small newsgroup (not even tech related, though I field all the tech questions) and have convinced several users to u
    • Re:Perfect Timing (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DrCash ( 800431 )
      It's really not hard convincing other people to use other browsers. Most of your average users on the internet (the non-techies, mom-and-pops, teeny boppers, etc) just use whatever comes with the computer because they don't have the knowledge to starting making additional major changes to their computer (or they just don't want to screw it up because they don't want to pay their geek friends to come and fix it - and laugh at them miserably - when they do screw it up). So that's exactly why IE is the browser
  • That icon with the Mozilla critter behind the N, I was reminded a little of this [].
  • Whilst many claim Firefox doesn't have the brand recognition that Internet Explorer does, it's getting a big push here in Australia.

    Take a look at the front cover [] of the Sydney Morning Herald. []
    You can read the full article here [].

    Kudos to MozillaZine for running an article [] on it. :)
    So yeah... people in Aust. are taking firefox seriously... most Aust. sites are getting hammered if they are not FF friendly. :)


  • Evil MS and IE (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bull999999 ( 652264 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @11:56AM (#9822521) Journal
    Did anyone noticed that Office 2003 Service Pack 1 automatically sets IE as the default brower without even asking?

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter