Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet IT

FireFox Sets the World Ablaze 436

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hype-train-keeps-on-rolling dept.
An anonymous reader submitted a story about Blake Ross and his involvement in the Firefox project. Just the latest in a steady stream of Firefox PR pieces, although with a more human take than just the 'Firefox is a good browser' stories.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FireFox Sets the World Ablaze More

FireFox Sets the World Ablaze

Comments Filter:

  • He got one right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by justsomebody ( 525308 )
    Microsoft is probably getting nervous

    • Re:He got one right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:52PM (#10890725) Homepage
      "Microsoft is probably getting nervous"

      Nervous about what? The web browser was the battle from 1997. Today it's web services, connecting new front-ends with really old databases, and the like. The web browser is simply a window on money-making backends, and the money is what Microsoft worries about.

      • Re:He got one right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:56PM (#10890783) Journal
        Yeah, but without controling window you can't control interior that people see inside (which services on which servers).

        Backend is north nothing if no one uses it.

      • Re:He got one right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Eric Giguere ( 42863 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:01PM (#10890832) Homepage Journal

        Yes and no. If the majority of people are using Windows and IE, there's a better argument for building browser extensions and other client-side Microsoft technologies (like Windows itself). Move people to other browsers and you take that away.

        Eric
        How to detect Internet Explorer [ericgiguere.com] (pretty relevant)

        • Re:He got one right (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:03PM (#10890868) Homepage
          Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you seen ASP.NET stuff? It's moved entirely away from client-side ActiveX-pushing. You can pretty much load it up in Firefox, Safari and Lynx, etc. and expect results.

          It'd be different if MS was still pushing client-side controls, but they're not. What they're pushing is a proprietary backend with a standards-based frontend. Again, they could care less about the browser wars.
          • Correct. As you say Microsoft is pushing stuff that *any* browser can handle. Which means you don't need IE, which means you don't need Windows.

            So by Firefox pushing the envelope you get more people who wouldn't otherwise switch browsers. That will lead in turn to less people using Windows because they *have* too and more people who us tech-types can switch to something else (Linux), and finally give Microsoft a run for their money with other OS's.

            This is a long term process to be sure but it is happe

          • Re:He got one right (Score:3, Informative)

            by freqres ( 638820 )
            For 'rich client-side functionality', you can host .Net Windows Forms controls in IE. It's ActiveX all over again except it's .Net. See article Hosting .NET Windows Forms Controls in IE [15seconds.com]

            Also, some of the more advance ASP.Net controls only work in IE such as the TabStrip control available from MSDN.
    • Why would they? When is the last time that they made money off of internet explorer? They plan on having the next rendition of the browser, IE7 be their last for a reason-- developing it further add no value to the company, especially when there are alternatives available for their customers to use in combination with Windows.
      • Giving something away doesn't mean you don't mak e money out of it. As for the last one? I doubt it. High percentage of net will still be existing without any new services .

      • Re:He got one right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:11PM (#10890954)
        One must consider that if people are willing to leave the comfort (and I mean from the typical user perspective) of Microsoft software for the browser, they may become more willing to consider other non-MS products too. If users become comfortable, in small steps, with open source software, that could be the beginning of a migration.
        • If users become comfortable, in small steps, with open source software, that could be the beginning of a migration.

          Right on -- it's more a psychological thing than anything else. The internet is THE killer app for home users. It's why Grandma and Aunt Bee are getting computers. In the past, the "face" of the internet has been IE.

          Once the Internet looks like a little fox wrapped around a globe, it's psychologically a much smaller step to switch from Windows to an alternative, less expensive operating s

  • Copy of the article for reference (Score:4, Informative)

    by teiresias ( 101481 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:19PM (#10890433)
    Like David and Goliath, the Mozilla Foundation -- a small, nonprofit organization offering open-source software -- is set to battle the software giant Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Latest News about Microsoft in the realm of Internet browsers.

    Mozilla's weapon of choice against its Goliath? Mozilla Firefox 1.0: A super-fast Web browser, in part created by Stanford sophomore Blake Ross, set to compete against Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

    As in the parable, the little guy's chances are looking good. On November 9, the day Mozilla Firefox was released, over one million people downloaded the browser. People on all seven continents are downloading and using the browser -- yes, even a research group in Antarctica is surfing the Web with Mozilla Firefox.

    Balancing his time between classes and the development of the browser, Ross has been working part-time at Mozilla to develop the project and remains part of the Mozilla Firefox core team. The release of Mozilla Firefox has certainly made a mark in Web culture: Ross has interviewed with major publications such as USA Today, as well as with online zines such as Business 2.0.
    A Better Browser

    Although the process has certainly been exhausting, Ross said he is eager to witness his creation take full flight.

    "It's exciting because open-source software hadn't really taken off until Firefox," Ross said. "Other open-source products were more for techie people and weren't really developed for the user."

    Ross started working on building "a better" browser while other kids were just getting hooked on instant messenger. He worked on the earlier versions of Netscape at the age of 14 and eventually interned for the company following his freshman year of high school.

    Although he enjoyed the experience, Ross found working at Netscape to be somewhat frustrating.

    "Larger open-source companies usually have a group of 50 people making decisions on the interface," Ross said. "Basically, if someone wants to have something in the software, they'll include it. There's no review process. So a friend of mine -- David Hyatt, who now works at Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) Latest News about Apple -- and I started to work on an experimental browser based on the Netscape code."

    Their first browser came to be known as Phoenix. The duo promoted the browser to the Mozilla Foundation and began working on fixing the bugs, asking a group of volunteers around the world to help develop the software. Phoenix developed into another version, which they deemed Firebird, which developed into the final version, the now-famous Mozilla Firefox.
    Global Effort

    The Mozilla Foundation, based in Mountain View, Calif., was established in July of last year and is supported by the Netscape division of American Online. Unlike companies such as Microsoft, which keep their information closely guarded, Mozilla encourages programmers to nitpick through the software and make improvements. Users who locate bugs are highly encouraged to report them.

    Kevin Christopher, a senior and resident computer consultant for Faisan, said that he has been using browsers other than Internet Explorer for a few years and distrusts Microsoft's products. He said he prefers using open-source software.

    "The concern I share with a lot of other people is a general lack of confidence in Microsoft's code: We don't really know what is well-written versus what is held together by duct tape," Christopher said. "When it comes to the safety of my computer, I'm trusting the application where independent experts can examine the source code, instead of relying on Microsoft's promises."

    The Mozilla Foundation is only a tiny organization compared to the market-dominating behemoth, but Mozilla Firefox is already making a dent in Web browsing usage. Since June of this year, Mozilla's share of Web browsing increased three percentage points; Microsoft's share, on the other hand, slipped three, according to the Internet usage tracker WebSideStory.
    Challenging Microsoft

    "

  • No links?!? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:20PM (#10890442)


    Nice article. Too bad there isn't one link to the Mozilla website.

    • Yeah, it's too gosh-darn bad. Not that the Mozilla servers aren't going to start getting batshit insane from all the traffic anyway. Why not just completely do them in now?
      (You will note that Spread Firefox [spreadfirefox.com] is mostly down at the moment.)

  • My favorite Firefox related story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:20PM (#10890443)
    Microsoft used Firefox [nwsource.com] in a press image they sent out promoting their MSN Search.

  • I've read a thousand articles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:21PM (#10890454)
    On 'linux, the new OS for the Desktop' articles in various local papers. However, I don't know any 'normal' person who has adopted it. People use what they use. I know people who still use NS4. Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change. Otherwise, they will just use whatever browser is installed on their computer.

    • Re:I've read a thousand articles (Score:5, Funny)

      by downward dog ( 634625 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:38PM (#10890606) Homepage
      I know people who still use NS4.

      I think it's time for an intervention.

      • Re:I've read a thousand articles (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I think it's time for a homicide...

      • Reasons people stay with NS4 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @04:36PM (#10891902) Journal

        I've known several people who've used Netscape 4 until at least very recently, and at least one person who still does. The main reason they don't use Firefox, short of not having heard of it, is that it's not a complete replacement for Netscape 4. All it does is browse the web.

        In every case that I've known, the barrier to change hasn't had anything to do with web browsing. It's all been about mail storage, since they've used Netscape for managing their email.

        These people are used to an integrated browser/mail-reader, so switching to Firefox and using a separate email program is unnatural, especially considering that its email-equivalent (Thunderbird) hasn't yet reached version 1.0.

        When I've been able to switch these people to anything, it's been either the branded Netscape 6/7 or the less-branded complete Mozilla suite. Compared with Netscape 4, the complete Mozilla is a resource hog. With decent hardware it's okay, but conisdering that some of these people's systems are relatively limited, Mozilla becomes much less of an option.

        I hope that Thunderbird is completed soon. It'll still be difficult to convert people from a browsing/email application to two separate applications, but at least there will be a viable replacement to the complete Netscape 4 that won't be quite as resource intensive as the current options.

    • And now listen to your words. Don't you think that gaining so much in such short time is impressive? IE had boost when browser wars werre active because it was included with OS. And its growth wasn't so much bigger than FF even if you count this advantage.
    • I know a number of people who have switched to FireFox because of word-of-mouth. Normal, every day, mac users.

    • Re:I've read a thousand articles (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:50PM (#10890716)
      I know my family uses Firefox. I had installed it on the main computer a few months ago when I was home, and since it has become their default browser (without me pushing it on them or anything, all I did was have a little icon on the desktop), and my dad has it installed on his laptop.

      People don't need to be forced to do anything, given a choice they will choose what they think is best. And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares? They are the ones who end up suffering. In fact, having them using IE keeps hackers trying to exploit IE security flaws instead of Firefox flaws (and yes, those do exist).

      • And if they choose an obsolete browser like IE 6, who cares? They are the ones who end up suffering.

        Unless you're a web developer who is actually interested in supporting web standards and doesn't like developing for two browsers - IE and everything else.

    • I know people who still use NS4. [...] but you stiil have to force people to change.

      And, it's not just people who haven't bothered (or are unable) to upgrade, some to this day are intentionally inflicting such an atrocity upon themselves [download.com].

      It's not just themselves their inflicting such pain, it's also the the web development community trying to push web standards, their biggest opposition being NS4 users.

    • Re:I've read a thousand articles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jtmas83 ( 794264 ) * on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:03PM (#10890873)
      I've read a thousand articles on 'linux, the new OS for the Desktop' articles in various local papers. However, I don't know any 'normal' person who has adopted it.

      Are you seriously comparing the adoption of Firefox to the adoption of Linux? Come on...Firefox is a ~5 MB download that takes about a minute to install on any of the major OSes; to try Firefox the user doesn't have to delete or migrate a single bit of data from their computer. If they don't like Firefox they can either just ignore it and use IE or they can completely delete it from their computer without having to restore anything.

      How is this in any way similar to linux?
    • That really isn't true, I know that I've gotten at least six people to switch over in the course of this semester, and thats not counting the people who switched of their own violition. Our school makes it availible in all the computer labs (some of them don't even have IE on the desktops), and their tech CD strongly recomends that you install it.

      Both of my parents heard the buzz and PR off the internet, and are asking me to install it over thanksgiving for them.

      Firefox is spreading because of articles l

    • Re:I've read a thousand articles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:58PM (#10891421) Homepage
      People use what they use. I know people who still use NS4. Firefox is great and all, but you stiil have to force people to change. Otherwise, they will just use whatever browser is installed on their computer.

      I can agree with that as long as you're talking about the most computer-illiterate section of the market-- i.e. my grandparents. They'll use whatever browser you put in front of them, and they'll call it 'the internets'. It's not so much out of laziness or indifference, they just don't know how to download things or install programs. They barely know how to check their own e-mail. Yes, those people, you'll have to just install it for them. Put a shortcut to Firefox on their desktop, give it the Internet Explorer icon, and change it's name from "Shortcut to Firefox.exe" to "Internets". They'll barely know the difference.

      On the other hand I help out with a friend's small business computer problems sometimes, and he had a spyware problem, so I installed Firefox on his Windows Machine. Next time I came back, he had tried to install Firefox on all of his computers, including his Macintoshes.

      I say 'tried' because he doesn't even know how to install Firefox on a Macintosh. For those who don't use OSX, the procedure consists of dragging a single icon from a disk image to anywhere on your hard drive (preferbly your 'Applications' folder). So that's how non-computer-geek the guy was, but he really liked Firefox, and wanted to have it on all his computers.

      Ok, so my point isn't to evangelise Firefox here, but what I'm saying is, don't underestimate the users too much. If you're offering another piece of software, the sales-pitch being that it's almost as easy to use, and it has good politics (OSS/GPL), then they'll probably be indifferent. If you're offering 2 [roughly] equivalent pieces of software, one of which is already installed and ready-to-use, they'll just keep what they have. However, if it's really offering a better user experience, even the semi-clueless are able to make up their own minds to switch. If you're really offering them better software (better in ways that they'll notice) with no downside-- well, then they'll go through some effort to switch.

      The totally-clueless, well, even when they're easy to convince, you'll still have to install it for them anyway, so it's almost just as well to go ahead and install it and see if they notice.

  • Things we already all agree on. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:21PM (#10890461)
    Firefox is good.
    Microsoft is bad.
    Linux is really cool.
    As long as it doesn't come from Red Hat.
    We don't like George W.
    We do like the space elevator.
    And we, for one, welcome our new *fill in the blank* overlords.

    OK, now can we go back to things that are interesting?

  • Interesting quote from article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:24PM (#10890480)
    "Having a good open-source browser that appears to be evolving very quickly exposes Microsoft to the risk that Mozilla will get good enough to start luring folks to it."

    Over 1 million downloads in one day. I think the luring may have already begun.
    • "Having a good open-source browser that appears to be evolving very quickly exposes Microsoft to the risk that Mozilla will get good enough to start luring folks to it."

      Presumably the insightful bit is that although Firefox is the better software by far, it should be lucky if even a few people are convinced to try it because it's competing against Microsoft.

      It might "lure" a few people away from the one true browser, but they're crazy to even bother, some of these journalists seem to be thinking, and then

  • Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AcquaCow ( 56720 ) * <acquacow&hotmail,com> on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:24PM (#10890484) Homepage
    and not only does the spyware stay away, but the net admins won't read your gmail ;)

    (The details: Putty now has more than just remote/local port fowarding. You can now select "dynamic" and allocate a local port. This port will then act as a local socks 4/5 proxy allowing you to encrypt/tunnel your web traffic out to another server that is preferably owned by yourself.)

    I honestly cannot live w/o Firefox at this point.

    Thank you Firefox team!

    -- Dave

    • Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zecg ( 521666 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:45PM (#10890663)
      If it's just Gmail you're worried about, then you can just change your bookmark from http://gmailblahblah to https://gmailblahblah. Then it's not just the login that's encrypted, but all traffic to the end of session.
    • It's really not Firefox specific. Any browser can take advantage of plink really.

    • Re:Firefox + putty + dynamic port fowarding (Score:5, Informative)

      by DoctorPhish ( 626559 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:43PM (#10891267) Homepage
      This was the first thing I set up on my machine at the new company I started working at 3 months ago. They had a single web proxy as the only route out of the intranet. This is how I did it.

      First the client:
      I installed putty, and under tunnels, set it to do port forwarding from my local http and vnc (5900?) ports to my remote firewall as if they were local to the firewall (eg. 10.0.0.3:5900).
      Then I set firefox and VNC to look at localhost as the proxy or address to connect to.

      Then, the server:
      I have an ssh server running on my openbsd firewall at home, locked down to only allow connections to a few IP addresses. I added the company's outside IP address.
      I installed TinyProxy as a web proxy (that was all the configuration I needed on the server side)

      Then, since the proxy only allows web traffic through standard ports, I had my putty traffic go through the company's https port.
      Finally, I had to redirect traffic from the company IP address on the https port to port 22 (ssh).

      Works like a hot damn!

      As an aside, my wife is currently in Japan, and I talked her through (over the phone) how to set up the same thing to connect up to her computer here through VNC (when she was having trouble setting up her mail on her mom's computer in Japan).
      It's that easy (once the server is set up)

  • Mass-Populance Peer Reviews remain undisputed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dark Coder ( 66759 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:24PM (#10890485)
    Never underestimate the power of the "word of mouth."

  • Well of course it sets the world ablaze... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pugflop ( 797868 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:26PM (#10890497) Homepage
    The fox is on FIRE! Haven't you seen the icon? That poor flaming canine is running around the world, setting it ablaze.

  • http://www.google.com/firefox (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:26PM (#10890498)
    What the fsck is this page? [google.com]

  • Plug-ins part of the browser? (Score:5, Informative)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:27PM (#10890512) Journal
    One main complaint made by critics is that the browser cannot open sites or requires plug-ins that are already part of Internet Explorer.

    As to the first issue of the above comment taken from the article, the reason FireFox can't open some sites is because the sites themselves are not coded correctly or require ActiveX *cough*SAP*cough*

    Run a page through the W3C HTML Validator [w3.org] and you'll see how poorly those sites are coded or are hacked about to render correctly only in IE.

    As far as the second issue is concerned, since when are plug-ins part of a browser? The very definition of a plug-in means they are something to added after the fact to do something.

    Maybe the author meant Extensions for FireFox.

    As far as I'm concerned FireFox does exactly what I want it to do right after the install. Other than making a few tweaks to turn things off and on, just like you would have to do in IE, FireFox runs as right as rain.

    • I think they were complaining that stuff that is a plugin for Firefox is a builtin for IE.
    • You can even get ActiveX in Firefox if you want it with the ActiveX extension. It's definitely not perfect since a lot of sites that use ActiveX also use lots of IE-specific, non-standard Javascript with it. But for simple ActiveX embedded video player components and stuff, like on launch.yahoo.com and mtv.com it works like a charm. And by default it is just configured to let a few plugin classids run, so random spyware stuff can't run or install itself.

      Still probably not as secure as not using ActiveX
    • The thing is, ActiveX is a good tool in the right hands. Big buisness WANT stuff like OWC (office web components) and until such systems are supported many people (such as myself) simply cant use Firefox. As for the HTML/Javascript problems. Yes a lot of pages and software isn't built right and failes to conform to the standards. However, which is better, being more forgiving and allowing (for example) javasctip to not require semicolons at the end of lines (somthing I see a lot from people with a backgroun
    • Funny, seeing what you get when running /. through the validator [w3.org].

      Is this a cover up? *grabs tinfoil hat*

  • Not the most accurate article I've ever read... (Score:3, Informative)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:27PM (#10890514) Journal
    Take this paragraph for example:

    Their first browser came to be known as Phoenix. The duo promoted the browser to the Mozilla Foundation and began working on fixing the bugs, asking a group of volunteers around the world to help develop the software. Phoenix developed into another version, which they deemed Firebird, which developed into the final version, the now-famous Mozilla Firefox.

    Unless I've blacked out and had my memories scrambled as a result, the reason for Pheonix becoming Firebird becoming Firefox were legal and other dificulties over the usage of those previous names. Anyone reading this article would be given the impression that those were desired name changes, not ones that were practically forced.

    And if the article can't even get why Firefox is called Firefox right it makes you wonder what else it's less than accurate about.

    Elsewhere in the article it says that "one of the novel features is the tab option, which allows users to open several Web sites at once in the same window." Well, if by "novel" you mean copied from another competing browser that has had that feature for ages, yeah, I guess it's novel.

    Seriously, this article has some flaws and inaccuracies that you could drive a bus through.
    • Well, if by "novel" you mean copied from another competing browser that has had that feature for ages, yeah, I guess it's novel.
      Heh, I guess Mozilla is the new Apple!

      [disclaimer: I am a Mac and Firefox user, so this is a joke, not a troll.]

    • Re:Not the most accurate article I've ever read... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dema ( 103780 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:53PM (#10890738) Homepage
      Anyone reading this article would be given the impression that those were desired name changes, not ones that were practically forced.

      I wouldn't call it inaccurate to keep from going too in-depth with why the name changed so many times. No where in the article does it imply Mozilla decided they didn't like the current name, so they changed it; that would be innacurate. The people who already know the story, know the story; the people who don't probably don't care, so why bother? This isn't a story about the history of Firefox, its main focus is one developer.

      Seriously, this article has some flaws and inaccuracies that you could drive a bus through.

      Examples? I hardly think nitpicking the word 'novel' (which was poor choice) is something you could "drive a bus through."
    • These are not flaws in the article, they are called editing. The purpose of the article was to give some background into how Firefox was developed, and how it stacks up to IE. It was not to present the Complete History of Browsers. Nothing they said was incorrect. The browser did go through three names - that is a fact, and the nitty gritty details of why this happened were completely inconsequential to the story. Tabbed browsing is novel for the 90% people in the world who have never seen it, and taken in

  • First ON TOPIC post? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <{dkh2} {at} {WhyDoMyTitsItch.com}> on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:27PM (#10890515) Homepage
    It's a sad state of affairs when the first 4 to 6 posts on a story are lame attempts to be first, or lame attempts to flame those who tried to be first.

    Anyway, I have to give the article points for being readable and informative. It's a nice piece of PR for a browser that really does out shine much if not all of the competition. If you've read the article, good for you. If yoy haven't, you owe it to yourself to do so.

    Likewise, if you haven't already tried Firefox you owe it to yourself - even if you're using Safari on OS X. I work in a Microsoft laden department and the official recommendation is for either Firefox, or Safari.

  • From TFA: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:29PM (#10890531)
    Hackers typically attack the market giant -- Internet Explorer, in the world of Web browsing -- leaving Firefox relatively safe and sound.

    Its good to know that journalists are getting it right.

    Once Firefox takes the lead in the web client arena, I guess we will all switch to IE because Firefox would be the new target of exploits, not IE.

    Now I know that Mozilla and Firefox have not been immune to vulnerabilities, but I would bet that it is in the way they are coded and not just marketshare.

    I've heard that there is an open source web server that has more marketsare than say IIS, but does not have the same number of security issues like IIS has.

    • "Once Firefox takes the lead in the web client arena, I guess we will all switch to IE because Firefox would be the new target of exploits, not IE."

      The result of which will be there will be no one dominate browser, making it difficult for hackers to exploit near universal security issues. Many will use IE, many will use Mozilla/Firefox, many will use Opera, many may even use Konqueror.

  • ...put "ac_add_options --disable-freetype2" in your .mozconfig. Otherwise you'll get errors in grx/src/freetype.
    • That's because the FreeType people keep changing things. I've no idea which version of FreeType it will actually compile cleanly with, but adding

      -DFT_RENDER_MODE_NORMAL=ft_render_mode_normal -DFT_KERNING_DEFAULT=ft_kerning_default

      to the DEFINES line in .../layout/svg/renderer/src/libart/Makefile will make it compile with 2.0.9
  • It's listed right there in the article:
    It keeps setting stuff ablaze.

    I tried it a few weeks ago, but had to stop almost immediately when my harddrive caught on fire, and melted right through the case.

    Then the CPU exploded and the ram started smoking.

    To its credit, though, Firefox is a pretty good browser. It worked for nearly an hour after that before my monitor melted.

  • World Domination? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Delrin ( 98403 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:34PM (#10890576) Journal
    How long will it be before Firefox replaces IE?

    I can't wait till banks and companies to develop IE specific applications are forced to ensure Firefox compatibility, I am still suck using IE in a few cases, would love to just uninstall the thing and be done with it!

  • Great Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spaceman40 ( 565797 ) <blinks@a[ ]org ['cm.' in gap]> on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:36PM (#10890594) Homepage Journal
    "Microsoft has tried to convince users that they need or want to have the browser coupled into every Microsoft application and vice versa ... [which] has led to software that is too 'integrated' to be secure against viruses -- kind of like having a heart attack every time you have a headache,"

  • Increasing Firefox usage statistics (Score:4, Funny)

    by patro ( 104336 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:37PM (#10890601) Journal
    One of BBSpot's tongue-in-cheek Top 11 Firefox extensions [bbspot.com]:

    MajorityNow - Surfs while your computer is idle to increase the browser usage stats for Firefox.

    Should not be too hard to implement. :)
  • The history here is very instructive. When we first included browser capabilities in Windows they did not get much use. Netscape continued to have over 80% share and there was no pressure on its price. Only when our browser won the overwhelming majority of all reviews did our share move up and Netscape have to come back down to a competitive price. It took a great deal of innovative work for us to not only catch up but move ahead in the browser business and we can be very proud of our contributions on behal

  • Security vunerabilities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kyhwana ( 18093 ) <kyhwana@SELL-YOUR-SOUL.kyhwana.org> on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:40PM (#10890630) Homepage
    So why hasn't http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vul nerabilities.html [mozilla.org]
    been updated now that 1.0 is out?

  • OK, I feel inadequate... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mogrify ( 828588 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:43PM (#10890651) Homepage
    At 19 I could barely figure out how to roll out of bed before 11:00AM, much less reinvent the concept of a web browser and start my own consulting company. I guess now that I'm 25, I'm doomed to watch teenagers innovate my career out from under me and die sad and alone.

  • Where is the NY Times Ad? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @02:55PM (#10890765)
    There was a big push to get contributors for the NY Times ad. I contributed myself. The idea was to have something out connected to 1.0 release +/- 3 weeks.

    I can't seem to even find a draft layout of the ad. Am I missing something? Worried that in their excitment at receiving lots of money, they've added a million features to the site, but have slowed up on the ad which attracted folks in the first place.

    Probably I just need a clarifying pointer to the place where the mockups are.

    • Re:Where is the NY Times Ad? (Score:5, Informative)

      by fobsen ( 798504 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:17PM (#10891019)
      Seems like there is a little delay, but everything is fine:
      So what's up with the ad? Rob Davis and I are managing the production of the ad and making sure that it gets done to our exacting standards. It's painstaking work, but we are committed to getting the ad in print sometime in early to mid-December. We've got a good deal of the design and thinking behind it worked out, so expect a preview sometime next week (we can't wait either)! Of course, embarking on this kind of design project is no easy task. Frankly, we need some help (what, you thought you could donate and leave the hard work up to someone else?!). So here's what I need and here's how we're gunna do this:
      Read the full blog-entry here: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=node/view/6291 [spreadfirefox.com].

  • My experience with Firefox (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sara Chan ( 138144 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @03:38PM (#10891232)
    After the release of 1.0, I downloaded Firefox for the first time, and then did an install. The installation claimed to import my passwords and cookies from my previous browser (IE6), but didn't. Then I tried using File > Import; this also claimed to import my passwords and cookies, and also didn't. I have a lot of passwords and don't know them all; so I then naturally became reluctant to switch from IE6 to Firefox.

    I'm running Windows 98SE, and I thought that might be the problem. This now seems unlikely, however, because the reviewer at the Washington Post had the same problem [washingtonpost.com]--and I doubt he's running Win98Se.

    I played with Firefox anyway, to see what it was like. For me, Ctrl++ doesn't work (although View > Text Size > Increase works fine). Also, there are problems when switching between working offline and online. And on one occasion, Firefox crashed. After the crash, a small application started up and asked me what had gone wrong; I entered a brief description and pressed the Send button, to send the information to Mozilla.org; then the small application crashed.

    I've reported problems like this before, both on Slashdot and on Mozillazine, but people seem reluctant to accept it. One slashdotter even claimed I was a troll [slashdot.org]. I was glad that at least one problem was reproduced by the Washington Post.

    Here's my conclusion: switching is too problematic for me to switch without strong motivation, and Firefox is actually less reliable than IE6 on my system. So, I'm sticking with IE6. Yes, I know IE6 is supposed to be insecure, but I run without ActiveX controls, and have not encountered problems.

    And to those who want to criticise me for posting this, consider that there are doubtless many others who had similar problems, and didn't report them as I have, and just walked away. And I loathe Microsoft and want free software to win.

    • > I have a lot of passwords and don't know them all;

      What you're saying is that you're screwed if the system dies or even if someone clears your stored data.

      Invest a little time with software [lostpassword.com] which can reveal passwords, write everything down and seal that information away in a physically secure location.

      Alternately, consider creating passwords according to a formula.

  • Keyword Bookmarking (Score:5, Informative)

    by Starluck ( 814092 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @04:11PM (#10891563)
    I've read better articles on firefox and Interviews with their creators. I found it sad that they didnt include probably the most powerful feature of the browswer that is leaps and bounds ahead of explorer. That feature that wasn't mentioned was KeyWord bookmarks, basicly the association of a keyword to your bookmarks! Imagine using the address bar on your browser as if it were a customizable search engine unto itself. An example is that you can bookmark FedEx.com then right click on it and attach multiple keywords to the bookmark, now if you need to track packeges via fedex.com there is now no need to actually visit the site; all you have to do is type in your address bar: track: (enter tracking number here) and firefox will plug that tracking number into FedEx and immdiately return the status of your package and all pertinent details. The possibilites of this feature are endless and saves so a lot of time that you would be normally be spending on load times from navigating said site. Like I said this feature is so awesome and unique I fail to see why anyone would leave it out when talking about FireFox.

    to read more about this feature: http://mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/sear ch/ [mozilla-europe.org]

  • How Google Could Help... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fupeg ( 653970 ) on Monday November 22, 2004 @06:03PM (#10892838)
    From TFA:
    "The biggest weakness is clearly that Web sites design and test their site with the dominant browsers -- different versions of Internet Explorer -- and frequently never get around to making sure it works with Mozilla," Rosenblum explained. "This isn't super common, but there are Web sites that don't work with Mozilla"
    Imagine if one of the things that Google determined when it crawled a site was if the HTML of the site was standards compliant (or even just Gecko compliant.) This could be included as metadata on search results, with some kind of small, nasty looking icon indicating that a site was "irregular" or something like that. Talk about a simple way to pressure sites into becoming more cross-platform friendly... Alternatively, it could list icons representing the plugins needed for a site, and just make the ActiveX icon a skull-n-crossbones.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close