Firefox Shooting For 10 Percent 564
Random BedHead Ed writes "An
article on ZDNet Monday features an interview with Bart Decrem, the Mozilla organization spokesman, who says that by the end of next year they expect to have 10% of the browser share. "We have the momentum," he says. He attributes some of the success to faster browsing and a lack of software bloat, and suggests that other open source projects might see similar success if they trim features. The article also quotes some very interesting figures from ZDNet's own web servers. About 9% of ZDnet visitors were using a Mozilla browser in February; now in it's at 19%." The average for OSTG overall is about 30%.
Show us your stats! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:4, Funny)
Note: "Other" does not mean PR0N.
Note2: Ok, "does not necessarily mean PR0N".
Note3: Ok, "in the majority of cases does not mean PR0N".
Note4: OK OK OK. "does not exclusively mean PR0N".
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:5, Informative)
The worst offenders are usually locked away behind user accounts (like bank systems) or hidden deep within a web site that otherwise works.
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:3)
IE Bin Laden (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Show us your stats! (Score:5, Interesting)
MS Internet Explorer 86.3 %
FireFox 5.6 %
Mozilla 3 %
Netscape 2.5 %
Safari 1.5 %
Opera 0.6 %
I don't believe IE could ever really drop down that much, because all the computer labs on campus have IE on default and cannot install FireFox. There is the Netscape option, but almost no one uses that.
My Website's Stats (Score:5, Interesting)
September 2003:
MS Internet Explorer 95.9 %
Netscape 1.8 %
Mozilla 1 %
Opera 0.4 %
Safari 0.4 %
September 2004:
MS Internet Explorer 92.5 %
Mozilla 4.1 %
Netscape1.4 %
Safari 0.8 %
Opera 0.5 %
October 2004:
MS Internet Explorer 90.9 %
Mozilla 2.7 %
FireFox 2.1 %
Netscape 1.4 %
My guess is that my host just updated awstats so that firefox and mozilla are seperated. It does list FireBird (less than
-LBArrettAnderson (I seem to be banned permenantly).
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:5, Funny)
2003-2004:
MS Internet Explorer 1 %
Netscape 0 %
Mozilla 99 %
Opera 0 %
Safari 0 %
I guess I'm the only one who finds what I have to say interesting.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:4, Funny)
Hardcore:
93 % - IE
3 % - Firefox
2 % - Safari
1 % - Opera
Zoo:
45% - Safari
25 % - Mozilla
20 % - Firefox
3 % - IE
1 - Opera
Group:
69 % - Konquerror
22 % - IE
5 % - unspecified
Gay:
100 % - Opera
In this way the developers will know what category of users they should foccuss on...
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:4, Interesting)
If I may act like a M$ fanboy for a sec...if IE use drops to 0% across the board, how does this affect M$'s bottom line?
I'm all for using anything but IE, but I still don't get the whole 'browser wars' thing. Except for bragging rights (and a potentially safer web experience), how much does it matter whether I'm using Free Browser X or Free Browser Y?
Web Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Web Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:5, Insightful)
It is felt on the server side and determines who gets to drive standards.
Additionally Firefox is carrying the banner for freely available open source software on the client much like sendmail and apache have done on the server. The success of Firefox will encourage other developers and increase the rate of adoption on software such as Open Office.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't disagree more. I'm responsible for a web-based application that my company's customers use to access our database, generate reports, fetch scanned documents, etc. and I made strict XHTML/1.0+CSS compliance a critical priority from the first day of planning. Because of this, our clients can use Windows+IE, Windows+Firefox, OSX+Safari, Linux+Konqueror, or good ol' Lynx to use every bit of functionality throughout the site.
Our clients are in the transportation industry, and many of them have Internet-connected computers solely to visit our site. As it stands right now, they have no reason whatsoever to stick with Windows when they buy their next computer. If their friends tell them to get a Mac because they're easier to use, fine. If their kid installs Linux for them because it's free, fine. If they want to stick with Windows, that's also OK.
The point is that I've given them no reason to keep from switching to a different OS if they want to. I didn't do this because I'm anti-Microsoft - I just wanted a good experience for our customers - but I'm sure that Bill and friends would've preferred that I approached it differently.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:3, Informative)
Which puts you in a different category from 95% of webmasters in the world. Your views of this subject are far from the norm.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't work. Never have done. They rely on a site putting special rating codes into their HTML, and it's extremely rare that anyone has done.
Thunderbird can apparently read multiple e-mail addresses from one domain (userx@noddy.com, usery@noddy.com . .
Thunderbird does this - in fact it does it very well (I have home & business accounts and a mistake could be costly).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
migration (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of like hoof and mouth disease for their cash cow.
Why IE Market Share Matters (Score:5, Informative)
The magic word here is `control'. As long as virtually everybody is using IE, Microsoft has great control over what websites can do and how they do it. For example, websites do use ActiveX controls, but they don't use XUL.
When Microsoft integrates XAML support into IE, web developers will be doing the things they can now do with XUL, but using XAML instead. F/OSS browsers will be locked out, because they don't support the new features the Microsoft way, even though XUL was there first.
Users will be bound to IE, and consequently Windows - the only platform IE runs on (the Mac port was discontinued, IIRC). This is why IE market share affects MS's bottom line. Without near-universal deployment of IE, they wouldn't be able to control the market like this.
It saddens me that the F/OSS communities don't work harder on enhancing interactivity on the web. I think this will be the killer feature of XAML - and I don't see why we need to sit and wait until Microsoft introduces it. We can beat them to it!
No good IDE for XUL (Score:4, Insightful)
Creating GUIs is fundamentally a different mindset to writing straight code. As a coder, I tend to use more "primitive" tools such as vim that let me get my hands dirty in the code (although Eclipse has just about turned me around); on those admittedly rare occasions when I have to build a GUI, I'm just lost without a powerful IDE. One of the big reasons for the success of VB in the past has been the absolutely killer drag-and-drop style IDE.
If/when MS releases XAML, you can be very sure it'll have a terrific IDE behind it. If there's no moderately comparable IDE for XUL at that point, I think it'll be very tough for XUL to keep up.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are the two ideas:
If MS controlls the browser 99% of people use, then they can change the HTML spec at will. Add a few MS only extensions, a few "nifty things" that other browsers can't do, like pipelining and activex. The theory is that people will be stuck with your OS, your web editor, your browser, and -- possibly -- your Server, all because somewhere down the line it becomes too painful NOT to.
The other theory is the ActiveX thing. If the browser becomes a platform for actual programs, for example web based games, shopping systems, etc, then people are going to be locked in to that format if they are going to want to go to that website. So if they can sucker enough programmers into using ActiveX or some other MS-extended mess, then the users are going to be stuck with IE in order to view that content. Of course, how do they keep the programmers stuck using ActiveX? By suckering enough users to use IE in the first place. Fortunately, PHP, Java, and the general suckyness of ActiveX kinda stopped that in it's tracks.
Then of course, you can make these things patiented, and prevent other people from even trying to beat you at your own game.
So yeah. The idea of MS losing a good 50% or market share -- which is very much a real possibility, since most tech grunts who work at ISPs *MUCH* prefer customers who don't use Outlook and IE (MUCH MUCH easier calls) is a good thing, because it will have a snowball effect.
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:5, Informative)
Well, first of all Microsoft doesn't make a browser. They make an OS named "Windows" one of its features is an icon called "Internet Explorer." That feature isn't free, you have to fork over cold, hard cash for a Windows license.
Secondly, Microsoft didn't throw all that money into winning the browser wars for bragging rights. They had two main goals:
1. Kill the browser as platform. This was a scary topic that Netscape was talking about in the 90's, and Microsoft had to kill it, as a threat to their OS monopoly.
2. Control the platform. For anyone who remembers MSN "Blackbird", Microsoft has always wanted to own the web. Originally they actually thought MSN could compete with -- and win out over -- the WWW. No, really! Then when they realized they couldn't own it, they decided to try to control all the interfaces, APIs, and methods to access it. Even this hasn't been well executed, since Windows has 95% of the browser market share, but Microsoft's proprietary technologies haven't really caught on that widely -- except as a vehicle for adware and spyware.
I agree that the browser wars mean very little in the sense that Firefox or Safari must "win". The real importance is in that the battle is being fought. As long as there is a battle, the web is safe from being controlled by any one entity, be it M$ or even the Mozilla foundation. It's when there's no one there to serve as a check or balance that our standard-based web is at risk.
Good gravy, that reads like a democratic manifesto. :-)
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess this [microsoft.com] doesn't exist then. As far as I can tell it's a free browser available from Microsoft.
Not that I use it...but it's available and free. I just like saying "you're wrong".
Photos by Daniel Coughlin [pbase.com]
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:3, Interesting)
If that happens, then more web designers will design web sites to conform to standards, rather than to make them work on IE. Web apps using XUL will be more prevalent, which is critical for MS. (Go back to the first MS antitrust suit and read the sections about "applications barrier to entry.") XUL would then carry through Andreesson's long-ago threat of turning MS Windows into a "colle
Re:My Website's Stats (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahead of Mac (Score:2)
Re:Ahead of Mac (Score:2)
Firefox runs on Mac, Windows, GNU, etc.
More people using Firefox on anything than people running anything on a Mac less Firefox? Perhaps, but I'm sure a fair few Mac users run Firefox.
I have a Mac, amongst other things and it runs Firefox.
So does this mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What really matters is wether it would cost more to make your site standards compliant than it would bring in through the added users. Since the cost of making the site correctly in the first place is very low, likely the same price as doing it incorrectly, that's almost never the case. Ignoring a segment of the market, no matter what percentage of the market it is, when the costs of supporting them are less than the return is stupid. As that segment grows, it becomes clear just how stupid neglecting that market segment was.
Standard Compliance Not Cost Effective (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. Any script kiddie with a WYSIWYG tool can generate a website that has hideous code but will be grokked by browsers. Making a standards-compliant website requires someone with actual knowledge and a certain passion, and likely needs to be hand-coded. This obviously costs a lot more.
At least, until the script kiddie FUBARs the site, of which I have seen the results a
Re:Standard Compliance Not Cost Effective (Score:3, Insightful)
Webmasters of commercial websites that deny non-IE browser access are not typically script kiddies with WYSYWYG design tools. They're typically Microsoft fanboys with with Microsoft certifications that they don't want to become useless who took the time to figure out how to write the javascript n
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:3, Insightful)
unfortunately, for the type of site you seem to be describing this doesn't play out. I'm assuming you mean the typical sell something site that has been built in FrontPage...the people paying the cost rarely know that the site won't work in non-IE browsers, because they don't know that non-IE browsers exist. They pay the developer for a site and the developer makes the decisions, an
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:4, Insightful)
10% matters enough that MS has started to convert www.microsoft.com to something that is quite nearly xhtml compliant and renders fine in mozilla. Even they realize that some of their customers use something else than IE.
The only sites I am aware of that don't work in mozilla tend to be targeted to windows users (typically authored by inexperienced developers and painfull to browse even in IE), older frontpage stuff or legacy stuff like 1st generation banking sites (most decent banks have since fixed their software and if yours hasn't: vote with your money). You're not missing much these days if you browse mozilla (and you miss a lot if you browse IE).
Sure, MS won the browser war but they lost the war over webstandards. Nobody uses their proprietary extensions and the technical roadmap for the internet is now drawn by others because MS has effectively stopped developing their browser. And now their marketshare will start to shrink unless they do something.
They don't think that way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, they will make two versions of the page, one for IE and one for Mozilla/Firefox, and tell everyone else to "upgrade". Just like they did when Netscape and IE both had significant marketshare.
PS: The Firefox version will of course be so outdated and broken, that you get better results by pretenting to be IE and let FireFox "bug compatibility" handle it.
Re:So does this mean.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla tool to make it truly the default browser (Score:4, Interesting)
Example: I build a Win2k box for my Dad who uses netzero. Netzero will still launch IE for the web based emai.
thoughts?
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:5, Informative)
Thats when you complain to NetZero so they know its not appreciated.
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:5, Interesting)
Might be fun to rename IE to iexplore.bak and FF to iexplore.exe - add the FF folder to PATH and see what happens. No promises, 'cause I haven't tried it, but like I said, might be fun ;)
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:3, Funny)
I'd prefer renaming iexplore.exe to iexplore.pos
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:5, Interesting)
I gave it a whack on my test machine, and it sort of works. What I did was installed firefox to C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer so as to not worry about path issues. Made a copy of IEXPLORE.EXE and made my IE shortcut point to the copy, made a copy of firefox.exe and renamed that copy to IEXPLORE.. This way, when firefox is called for normally, nothing is different for it. MSN launches firefox now when checking my hotmail, except it doesn't actually load hotmail, that doesn't work seem to work, with the way IE is being called by MSN. Then, when I launch IE manually later, it loads two instances of the browser: 1 with my start page and 1 with hotmail in it. If I hadn't run MSN just prior, and tried to check hotmail in firefox then it just does the start page. IE also now gives a warning about running in compatibility mode, and that some features may be disabled (probably a good thing, heh), but my online banking works so it works well enough. I'd figured there wouldn't be major issues with filename conflicts, though something obviously did bork somewhere.
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:3, Informative)
I've just dealt with something similar. The first step is to go through (manually and painfully) Win32 file associations and make sure nothing points to Internet Explorer. That, and having FF set as the default browser, should significantly reduce the need for IE.
The next step, and one that I have yet to try, is to find a test system and symlink the IE binary to FF. It's a disaster waiting to happen, I know, but I think the experiment itself is worth the effort, let alone any possible success. In case you
Re:Mozilla tool to make it truly the default brows (Score:4, Informative)
Start Button > Set Program Access and Defaults > Choose a Default Web Browser
19% of ZDNet users? (Score:2, Interesting)
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting? Probably not. (Score:2, Informative)
June '04:
MSIE 6.0 - 6444 (56%)
Moz 5.0 - 2330 (20%)
July '04:
MSIE 6.0 - 8673 (48%)
Moz 5.0 - 5144 (28%)
August '04:
MSIE 6.0 - 8954 (42%)
Moz 5.0 - 7331 (34%)
September '04:
MSIE 6.0 - 15515 (41%)
Moz 5.0 - 12550 (33%)
October '04 (through yesterday):
MSIE 6.0 - 16209 (39%)
Moz 5.0 - 14540 (35%)
Yup, my numbers are just as meaningless and ske
Re:Interesting? Probably not. (Score:5, Interesting)
with the SCO stuff that's going on, my company WILL NOT allow anyone to install ANYTHING that we haven't protected ourselves from. This basically means that we pay hundreds of dollars per line of source code to use open source software for the sole purpose of saying that "We got it from a vendor, sue the vendor not us!"
in the event that some company comes around and claims that they themselves wrote firefox and decides to sue every user, i guess we'll be protected.
I call bullshit. it drives me MAD that i can't use PuTTY or Firefox at work. Its an easy choice i guess, to use IE or get fired, but I'm already looking for another job because of it. Yes I HATE IE that much.
Really freak them out (Score:5, Informative)
Translation: We don't guarantee we own it (CONDITION OF TITLE), don't guarantee you won't get legally harrassed because of using it (QUIET ENJOYMENT), and don't guarantee it doesn't infringe on anyone else's copyright (NON-INFRINGEMENT). Your employer has no more guarantee using commercial software unless specifically stated otherwise in a contract.
Show your boss the licenses to the commercial software you're using and watch the sparks fly.
Re:Interesting? Probably not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking in Russian... (Score:4, Funny)
Solider: "Bumagi Pazhaluysta!"
Eastwood hands him a roll of toilet paper.
Well, from what I've seen... (Score:2)
I think it's because most of the people I deal with are in the antispyware/privacy community, so that could skew it a little.
Site Stats (Score:5, Informative)
I can't comment for other sites, but for our city's website, http://www.laytoncity.org/ [laytoncity.org], here's our breakdown as of 9:14am today:
Re:Site Stats (Score:3, Interesting)
41.0% Internet explorer 6
17.7% \"Window (W.T.F.?!?)
14.4% e-SocietyRobot
8.92% Mozilla 5
4.05% Internet explorer 5
2.33% Googlebot
2.13% Ocelli
2.11% Mozilla 3.01
1.13% Slurp
1.07% Jetbot
0.65% msnbot
0.49% HenryTheMiragoRobot
0.35% Wget
0.26% NaverBot
0.24% Googlebot-Image
What's worse is that most of those "MSIE" hits are probably robots too -- just look at the number of copies of internet explorer downloading pages only linked-to from invisible hyperlink
Sysadmins out there - please note that... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sysadmins out there - please note that... (Score:4, Informative)
- Download Firefox 1.0
- Install it
- Configure it how you like it (homepage, themes, bookmarks)
- Move your profile directory (in your home directory) to the defaults directory for Mozilla
- Use advanced installer to pack it into a msi
That way, you can set up Firefox with bookmarks for all your company homepages and with a skin (my favorite is qute) that integrates well with XP.
Microsoft's Worst Nightmare (Score:5, Informative)
Business 2.0 has an interesting article [business2.com] titled "Microsoft's Worst Nightmare" with some additional background on the rise of Firefox.
Reading the text you can almost imagine Redmond concocting a cunning plan to distract 19-year-old Blake from his Firefox duties, involving free tickets to a tropical island with Natalie Portman. And daily hot grits via room service.
The Return of Microsoft Free Fridays? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not using MS products IS probably is the least you can do. Whatever happened to Microsoft Free Fridays [scripting.com]? With FireFox aiming for 10% of the Web, it seems like it might be time to do more than the "least" for the web.
Any interest in a javascript alert message campaign to promote Firefox on Fridays? People could add the script to their site and on Friday an alert message would display saying something allong the lines of "The browser you are using isn't startard compliant or secure. Please consider upgrading to Firefox."
Re:The Return of Microsoft Free Fridays? (Score:3, Funny)
JS alerts are just as annoying as pop-ups/unders. (more?)
Instead of people switching browsers, they would most likely switch sites to browse on Fridays.
100% Mozilla! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:100% Mozilla! (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, sorry for being so harsh. They might've regenerated the stats since you last looked at it.
It will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
I did my part... (Score:3, Interesting)
She finally succumbed.
Her reaction: "Wow, it lets me do much more than I could before. I love it!"
If everyone tells two friends (and they tell two friends), we can finally eliminate I.E. from the universe! BWAHAHAHAHA!
Feature creep (Score:5, Insightful)
FOSS developers, on the other hand, generally want to use the program they're writing (and don't want its performance to suffer). Also, they're open to the possibility that their niche has a boundary past which they shouldn't grow. There is generally less financial pressure to add new features than there is general pressure to keep the program working.
The thing that keeps Linux competitive is that Linus won't accept (*) a new kernel feature patch that decreases performance. As a result, Linux benefits from new hardware but continues to work on the older stuff (or at least, you can make it work).
I think as long as the Mozilla people keep these principles in mind, they'll keep doing great work.
----
(* except for emergency security fixes, or in a development kernel where the current state of a new patch is too slow, but the technology looks like it will eventually be faster.)
Re:Feature creep (Score:3, Insightful)
Just compare the speed and size:
OpenOffice.org vs. KOffice, or even MS Office
glibc vs. NetBSD libc
GNOME or KDE vs. Xfce
Mozilla vs. Opera
Firefox vs. Safari
I may have an occassional mistake, and some omissions, but I think this disproves your claims.
And, seriously, Mozilla is bloatware, and Firefox needs to do a lot more fitness to get slim and fast.
Dissenting Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Compared to what? Mozilla is a piece of bloatware, and although the Firefox team stripped a lot of bloat, it still isn't exactly a lean browser. Konqueror on my 333 MHz Celeron feels faster than Firefox on my 800 MHz G4, not to mention Firefox on the Celeron.
I've heard about many IE users who didn't want to switch, because IE is faster. Opera leaves both of them a mile behind.
Seriously, there are good reasons for using Firefox, but speed and lack of bloat are not among them.
Anybody still working on the KHTML to GTK port?
Re:Dissenting Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
You compare Firefox and Konqueror on two different architectures. When using them both in Linux on P3 and P4 machines, Firefox seems every bit as fast to me, though it starts up a bit slower. Once it's set up with my preferred set of extensions (easy-gestures, bookmarks synchronizer, web-developer, adblock), it provides the best browsing experience I've encountered. This extensi
Love KDE. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've yet to try Firefox out on the same platform as Mozilla and Konqueror, but I can say that Konqueror is now may favorite browser. It looks good, it's quick on modest hardware like 333 MHz PII and up, and it's integrated spell check and file manipulation tools across local, ftp and sftp rock. I miss the specific blocking features, but the trade off is worth while.
For pure speed, Dillo is very cool. It won't do scripts but it runs like lightning under fluxbox on a 90MHz P1 with 24 MB of RAM.
Re:Love KDE. (Score:3, Informative)
Type in "fish://myuser@any_remote_Linux_box/" in and fall in love.
It works over ssh, which means it will work with just any Linux distro out of the box. (Because AFAIK ssh is installed and active on almost all Linux distros)
You will never use FTP again. FTP is insecure, a hassle to set up and generally outdated.
BTW, the "fish:" links work everywhere in KDE, not just in Konqueror.
How MS can save corporate users (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what I envision:
With a single configuration setting - something a non-techie library employee can set when logged in as an administrator, have it automatically block all potentially-hostile content from everyone that's not on a predefined whitelist.
The default whitelist is *.yourorganization.com + *.microsoft.com. Whitelisted sites would not necessarily be treated as the "local" zone, but rather they'd be treated the same as if the lockdown were not in effect.
Plus, add a button to the end-user screen that says "site doesn't work." If a user clicks on this, the administrators will be notified to check it out and, if they deem the site safe, grant it more privilages.
This is something MS, or possibly even a third-party vendor, could do in a matter of weeks. It requires few if any underlying code changes, mainly just a browser-helper-object and some "re-packaging" of existing configuration settings.
The long term solution of course is to redesign IE's security model.
If MS takes no action, they'll continue to lose market share to browsers that don't represent such an open door to hostile code.
lack of dynamic fonts (bitstream/truedoc) support (Score:4, Interesting)
The stats from windowsupdate.microsoft.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The stats from windowsupdate.microsoft.com (Score:3, Insightful)
I managed to load the Windows update page here, but couldn't get very far without Active X (on Linux).
Here are my results over the past 3 months (Score:3, Insightful)
MS Internet Explorer No 63689 91.9 %
Mozilla No 1875 2.7 %
Netscape No 1363 1.9 %
Unknown ? 702 1 %
Safari No 563 0.8 %
FireFox No 554 0.7 %
Opera No 315 0.4 %
Firebird (Old FireFox) No 121 0.1 %
Sept 2004
MS Internet Explorer No 56837 91.5 %
Mozilla No 1685 2.7 %
Netscape No 1294 2 %
Safari No 945 1.5 %
FireFox No 931 1.4 %
Unknown ? 211 0.3 %
Opera No 118 0.1 %
Oct 2004
MS Internet Explorer No 40864 91.9 %
Mozilla No 895 2 %
Netscape No 880 1.9 %
FireFox No 757 1.7 %
Safari No 628 1.4 %
Unknown ? 235 0.5 %
Opera No 85 0.1 %
Include PreBar by default!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
/. people need to donate $$$$$ (Score:5, Informative)
People, this is once in a lifetime shot at getting the web back from commercial interested.
$30 or even a $10 will go a LONG way.
Re:/. people need to donate $$$$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm definitely pro-firefox. I've gotten numerous people to switch. I'm willing to spend my time getting someone installed and tweaking the app to their preferences, but I can think of a lot of other places I'd rather spend my money than for a one-shot ad in the paper.
Only shooting for 10%? Slogans. (Score:5, Funny)
Mozilla FireFox -- The Libertarian Candidate of Browsers
Mozilla FireFox -- Shouldn't YOUR computer be on Fire?
Google browser (no, not GBrowser) - FF platform (Score:3, Interesting)
For an example, you can try Firefox/Mozilla search plugin that lets you _full-text_ search your bookmarks from Firefox via Simpy[1]. I am sure you will see a lot more of that stuff soon.
Firefox is powerful, and when 1.0 hits download servers, all major newspapers will be blabbering about it, just like they were blabbering about GOOG's IPO. Then even non-tech people will dump IE in favour of Firefox.
[1] Simpy [simpy.com]
I show up as GoogleBot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I show up as GoogleBot (Score:4, Funny)
Small manufacturer website stats (Score:4, Informative)
IE 6.0: 73.2%
IE 5.5: 6.6%
IE 5.0: 6.1%
NN 6.+: 1.6%
NN 4.7: 1.0%
Mozilla: 3.7%
Safari: 1.6%
And 12 hits from Konqueror! Props to the unix-geek farmers!
Re:Rendering issues (Score:5, Informative)
My page is a bit more encouraging (Score:5, Funny)
MS Internet Explorer 27.6 %
Mozilla 7.2 %
Opera 7 %
Netscape 3.2 %
Safari 1.6 %
Unknown 0.7 %
Konqueror 0.3 %
WebCopier 0 %
But Jolt Finder [joltfinder.com] does not see a lot of traffic, I was thrilled when Firefox overtook Explorer. But then again, I use Firefox, and obsessivly check the statistics waiting for a slashdotting.
Re:FireFox question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FireFox question (Score:5, Informative)
Whenever slashdot supports web standards, obviously. This site is terrible when it comes to using standards compliant code. In other news, IE is generally better at rendering sites with malformed code than FireFox. (IE is still behind FF in standards compliance of course.)
Re:FireFox question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FireFox question (Score:3, Insightful)
When you can build an unambiguous object tree from HTML, you can define what "properly" means and apply it to that tree to get pixel-perfect renderings in every correct browser known.
When the same HTML can be diagrammed 39 ways to Sunday without any being the obviously correct tree, the rest is a crap shoot.
It's like attempting to decode data encrypted with a one-time pad. "Mozilla is teh r0xx3r!" is just as likely as "Internet Explorer 4 me", but neither is
Re:FireFox question (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've seen, it seems the developers of both Slashcode and Firefox agree it is a bug in Firefox.
Re:FireFox question (Score:4, Insightful)
A website shouldn't require user intervention to display properly.