Firefox Continues to Bite into IE Usage 521
InformationSage writes "According to Information Week, Firefox usage is now over 6 percent, pulling Internet Explorer usage down below 90 percent. 'Firefox is currently the only browser that is increasing market share on a monthly basis, and it is growing at the direct expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer'"
But wont.. (Score:5, Funny)
Better security
Tab Browsing
Conformance to standards
Re:But wont.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but what's the standard? Better security than Firefox, or simply better security than IE6?
"Tab Browsing"
We'll have to see the specifics of their implementation, won't we? For example, will I be able to force IE7 to operate in just one window?
"Conformance to standards"
Yes, but for Microsoft's definition of the word "standard." Rarely does it have anything to do with how the rest of the world uses that word.
Re:But wont.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, the average person, no matter how much slashdot would like to think, doesn't care anyway.
That said, the traffic on my website (mostly generated from fark and slashdot) is close to 35% firefox, 25% opera, and the rest IE and others.
Re:But wont.. (Score:5, Funny)
He can still make mousegestures with his nose in Firefox ;)
Re:But wont.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Integration" is that microsoft considers the IE rendering engine to be a part of Windows, and so iexplore.exe just wraps that renderer in a GUI and some networking code.
That is very similar to KHTML and KDE - KHTML is used quite widely throughout KDE, not just in Konqueror.
There is nothing wrong with doing that, code reuse is a good thing and it even has potential to be _more_ secure th
Re:Watch for MS to make an announcement... (Score:5, Informative)
But Maxthon is still completely vulnerable to all those nice IE exploits that are dropping spyware on people's machines. *THAT'S* why a lot of people are dropping IE, rather than some usability or feature issue. Heck, I made the mistake of checking out a site in IE for my girlfriend when she was visiting. It auto-installed spyware on my fully patched WinXPSP2 laptop (hadn't installed any BHO protection).
As for ads, just drop in the powerful, full-featured AdBlock extension. The fact is, just about any feature you can think of (and every feature in a shell like maxthon) is available for Firefox as a free, open-source, easily installable extension.
Re:But wont.. (Score:3, Informative)
Now if you said "IE does not fully support CSS2", I'd say that would be a truthful, accurate statement, not misleading at all. It implies that
Nearly 30% on my site (Score:5, Interesting)
Occam's razor (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if your stats can show that John Q. Public or Jane Q. Soccermom is visiting your site and using FF, then that's completely different.
Re:Occam's razor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:2)
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:5, Funny)
Sub BrowserDetect()
If Browser != "Firefox";
RedirectBrowser("www.getfirefox.com");
End If
End Sub
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:2, Interesting)
Around 11% on mine (Score:2)
See: AWSTATS [homeip.net] page. (Yes, it will be dog slow if everyone hits it at the same time...)
Stop navel-gazing. Password protect your stats. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, you know that by making your stats available on the web you are doing the following:
You are helping (referer) spammers!
So, for the love of [insert deity here], would you please password protect such pages
rel="nofollow" (Score:3, Insightful)
Publishing Webalizer stats doesn't help spammers if you hack it to use rel="nofollow" [google.com].
Re:Stop navel-gazing. Password protect your stats. (Score:3, Informative)
I am saying that automated public republishing of the HTTP Referrer field sent by web browsers is evil. I sm not saying collecting that information is evil, nor am I saying that browsers are wrong in sending this information to visiting sites.
What I am saying is that this information is trivial to falsify, and that there is a shitload of bots that look for websites, and "visit" them repeatedly having set this field. An example:
wget --referer=http://spammer.example.com http://slashdot.org
If Slashdot h
Re:Nearly 30% on my site (Score:3, Informative)
1. My site has IE usage below 25%, mostly because I link to it from here. It actually has an entry for Galeon, which until I searched, I had no idea what it was.
2. A NY musician's site registers as 18% Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape.
3. A financial services site (which from experience caters to the most mom-and-pop audience you can imagine) has only 2.9% Firefox usage. A similar site on the west coast of the US has about 4.5%
What about Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole mozilla projet (mozilla + firefox) is what *really* matters, not only Firefox!
Re:What about Mozilla? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Mozilla? (Score:2)
Re:What about Mozilla? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does no one remember that there was (and may still be, I use FF/TB instead of the suite now) a major problem with one part of the suite crashing and taking the rest with it? Many times I was bitten by a buggy Moz Mail plugin crashing and pulling my 10+ tab web session off
comeback (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla has an advantage with the fact that they can release a new version practically anytime, with updates nightly or anything. IE updates have to go out to everyone using it, and in general the people will not know as much, therefore creating more trouble.
Re:comeback (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:comeback (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia seems to agree with me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCaptor [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:comeback (Score:2)
I did a bit more reading after posting , and it certainly apears to have been a sweeping at the time , All i remember for certain was that opera was not the first
internet browser to use tabbing , But it did certainly do it properly
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:comeback (Score:2)
Re:comeback (Score:2)
Re:comeback (Score:3, Interesting)
Full CSS implementation for the net will be sweet, and will probably come about partly through Mozilla Foundati
Re:comeback (Score:3, Interesting)
What's ironic is one would assume Microsoft would have the upper hand in the updates game since they have their automatic update mechanism to changes things a few KB at a time if they wish.
Whereas installing a Firefox update usually means reinstallin
XUL IDE (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm missing is a good XUL IDE. I hear that KDevelop is going to support XUL soon and there are others, but one thing that Microsoft does really well is to help the developers to get started. Now if there just were a good IDE with syntax highlighting, completion and testing I think XUL apps would really take off. Don't you?
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
I would never want to see Firefox reach the level of dominance that Internet Explorer has reacher. Having a 90% market share leads inexorably to the stalling of innovation.
A much better position would be for there to be lots of browsers with around 15% market share. This would foster creativity and would hammer home the importance of standards compliance.
I want the days of the software monopoly to come to an end, and Firefox may be the a catalyst for the wide spread disintegration of such monopolies.
Simon.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, people using proprietary software uses a given set of applications, for a given set of basic tasks, and there is allmost no variation, besides versions.
Free Software encourages the necesary diversitiy in the software that is used. I Think there are not 2 geeks that has the same setup on their Free Software Box. We have various OSs to choose from, and we do, in the case of GNU/Linux, we have different distros, we use various browsers, terminal emulators, editors, office suits, IM programs, media players, mail clients, etc,etc, etc.
ALMAFUERTE
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is true for open source projects. I know Apache doesn't have 90% market share, but it is dominant, and still continues active development. It is continually developed because the people working on it feel that it needs new features. Conversely, new features are not added where a package does everything it needs to do. Closest I can think of is grep. For things like Firefox, I expect that will be a long time in coming
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
User-Agent cloaking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:User-Agent cloaking (Score:2)
It seems that the only reason to bring up user-agent cloaking on slashdot is to try and grab some mod points.
(Hope it works!)
Re:User-Agent cloaking (Score:2)
Having the ability to adjust the useragent for a specific list of broken sites would make large business deployments that much more possible. As it stands, the "so now we'll have to support two browsers, IE and Firefox" argument is still persuasive.
Re:User-Agent cloaking (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also pretty easy to filter for if you realize that a Mozilla compatible I.E. with the word Opera attached to the end is not likely to have come from Redmond. But the numbers that these companies are throwing around sound about right for Opera's marketshare, so they're probably doing such filtering already.
Does anyone know of a graph? (Score:2)
slashdotted? (Score:2)
Re:slashdotted? (Score:2)
Slashdot is only fun when you're looking over your shoulder for the PHB...
I Would like to think that IE is loosing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Internet Explorer market is people with default windows installs, and that is at least 70% of the market. That people is not going to switch anytime soon. So the grow of firefox will sadly certainly encounter it's roof soon.
I Would also like to make something clear, this is not a victory for Free Software like many people understand. This is not a victory against propietary software. Most of the people that installs Firefox doens't undestand or care about the fact that firefox is Free Software. Most firefox installs are under windows.
We will be talking about the victory of Free Software when people understands why Free Software is important, and why proprietary software shouldn't be used, and NOT when some specific piece of Free Software gains marketshare.
This is good but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is good but... (Score:2)
WHAT??? I have never heard of that -- do you have a link to back that up?
Other browsers gained more. (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox's gain comes at the expense of Internet Explorer, which dropped to 89.04% market share, from 90.31% in December.
So, IE has dropped by 1.27% and Firefox has risen by 0.58%. That means other browsers have risen by 0.67%, which is more than Firefox.
Re:Other browsers gained more. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other browsers gained more. (Score:2)
Re:Other browsers gained more. (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Applications reports that other browsers maintained their user base.
and also:
Firefox is currently the only browser that is increasing market share on a monthly basis, and it is growing at the direct expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer
That means that the numbers for the other browsers did not go up or down by any significant amount.
Often Wonder (Score:4, Funny)
I always like how they manage to get these results out to the second decimal place.
I converted, IE evil, FireFox good. I'm warming to ThunderTurd.
10% Market Share.. then BOOM! (Score:2)
Firefox for the masses... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking about the following: Every time the is a security warning, such as "Do you want to install this programme?" or "Do you want this java applet complete access to your hard disk?", shouldn't there also be a button marked "I have no idea what this means" and make it the default button. This button has obviously the same function as cancel.
Re:Firefox for the masses... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Firefox for the masses... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because people won't want to feel stupid. For an "install program" warning, the option should be Ignore, Yes, No, in that order. But at all costs, the window must not be allowed to popup again. The Ignore and No setting should be at LEAST saved for the entire browser session - i.e., until the user closes the browser and opens it up again. If the warning pops up again and again after the user selects Ignore, he WILL eventually click Yes.
Re:Firefox for the masses... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes/no leads to blind clicking of the default because the user has no cue as to what she's doing from just the buttons alone (which is all most people bother reading). Sticking verbs on actually lets the user know what they're doing, even if they do accept the default. Clicking something that says "Trust" or "Don't Trust" reinforces that there is some kind of risk involved, whereas yes/no dialogs all look the same.
Until IE7 comes out - that is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure this makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not sure this makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this makes sense (Score:2)
I'm the guy who gets called in whenever someone with a Powerbook or iBook has a problem at work, because I'm the only tech who's drunk the white kool-aid. It's amazing how many people running Panther still use IE.
And Firefox i
Microsoft could easily win this (minor) war (Score:5, Interesting)
Then for the final business reason to keep IE. Make a
Then everybody will have what they want. Business types just want excel/office for browing the Internet and the tech types will be able to code standards compliant web pages for their intranets.
Oh...and as a side note. Work on security a bit too. Personally, I don't see how they are going to fix it with backward compatability a overriding requirement. If they can't get rid of ActiveX, then their security problem won't go away.
-I hate unripe sigs.
Re:Microsoft could easily win this (minor) war (Score:2)
What wonderful phishing opportunities that would provide!
Lotto in the UK (Score:2)
Try going here [national-lottery.co.uk] using FireFox and you'll see what I mean.
Fighting for Market Share of a Free Product (Score:5, Insightful)
Home Page, Search Dominance (Score:3)
I also know first-hand from MS employees that some of the justification is much shorter-term. A majority of IE users don't
CNN Story (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the coworkers downloaded FireFox right away. I actually expected him to take a little while to wean off of IE. After I showed him FireFox's features, however, he set FireFox to his default browser and deleted his IE shortcuts! I think we're definitely making headway.
A Tad Scarry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do they count popups? (Score:5, Interesting)
Closer to 30% according to my server stats. (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the course of the past three months, I'm seeing closer to 30% of my traffic as being Mozilla based, with Firefox accounting for almost all of that. 60% is IE, and the rest is split between Opera, Safari, Konqueror and various spider bots. Oddly enough, Opera is better represented than Safari... I attribute this to its popularity on cell phones.
Speaking with other admins, these numbers aren't unique.
IE's lost its monopoly in the home browser market... its overall dominance comes from locked-down corporate desktops, where change comes but slow.
SoupIsGood Food
running to 19% for some legit business stats. (Score:3, Informative)
His stats run about 19% for Firefox, and no more than 65% for all versions of IE combined. Contrast that with 88% market share this time last year for IE.
Because of the dynamic business nature of his sites, they have over
are the US really that far behind in Firefox use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Big suprise this month (Score:4, Interesting)
I run a snowboard store at www.snowdevil.ca [snowdevil.ca] and this months statistics are really surprising.
Obviously this is a pretty young clientele
Browsers:
Operating systems:
Go non MS stuff!
Re:A "Beta?" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A "Beta?" (Score:2, Funny)
* burnin karma all day
Re:A "Beta?" (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla's hard to manage????? (Score:3, Informative)
True for a lot of open source software... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that it is quite easy to add this type of support to a lot of open source software. A simple thing like creating an MSI-package for your application will often help deployment a lot.
Maybe all that is missing is a few decent tutorials on packaging and AD integration to get open source software into corporate IT-environments?
Re:True for a lot of open source software... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. Time for Firefox developers to start integrating browser settings with AD, and making deployment easier.
Who would want to use the more insecure browser in a corporation bent on security? You have no choice right now, though; firefox is nigh impossible to deploy effectively without going to every single client machine and configuring the settings manually.
it's not just AD integration. (Score:4, Insightful)
b) it's scripted/automatic install *and* repair. there may be some of this in there but i'm not sure.
c) other remote/automatic managenent support for not only ADS but also NDS (SuSE/Novell would be very interested in that).
eric
Re:A "Beta?" (Score:5, Informative)
MSI Package can be rolled out with Group Policy in an Active Directory domain.
Not entirely true (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox accepts a startup flag (-profile d:\foo) that tells it what it's configuration directory is. You can install firefox on a shared directory, and have it retrieve settings from a (read-only) shared directory (or on a per user basis).
While it's not as finegrained as internet explorer's policies (where you might prevent some-one from changing only the homepage, and nothing else, or vice-versa), it's by no means unconfigurable.
This sort of thing should hardly come as a surprise. Applications have been using
Now, it's a shame firefox doesn't come with a handy-dandy MSI file, but then, neither does Internet Explorer. Then again, "deploying" firefox is a question of copying/sharing a directory and adding a shortcut with a -profile flag. Much easier and less prone to failure than a (remote/MSI) IE install.
Also, check out sysinternals. They have some real handy tools like PsExec (in the Pstools package); basically rexec for windows, which can really ease your pain when managing a zillion workstations where some change needs to be applied NOW.
And for more security options, check out windows-2003 server and XPs "software restriction policies"; and the great tdifw [sourceforge.net] firewall (no GUI, just a service configured by copying a text-based file to your workstations and restarting the service, mucht better than any Norton offering) (wipfw [sourceforge.net] might also be nice).
Re:Not entirely true (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, I never thought of doing it this way (mind you, I've never had to; I'm just a home user). This will be good information, because the "can't deploy on a network" troll is popular on all FF stories. And, believe me, I don't think that, in most environments, lack of configurability on the user's end will be a problem
Re:Not entirely true (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the latest trunk builds [mozilla.org] do. Obviously, a corporate or university (or other large-scale deployment setting) woudln't want to roll out a development build, but I would think that we can see official MSI's for the next point release.
Can't be bothered to switch users from buggy IE (Score:3, Insightful)
You sure there is no way? (Score:4, Informative)
If you want to set a particular action for your people, edit the configuration stuff. There's a lot of documentation on how to do it.
Mozilla is making their browser configuration work pretty much the same as everything else in OSS: through config files, which considering the complexity is probably a good idea.
With a GUI you'd have to play "find the menu item" to get anywhere. Ironically, though, if you want to do that, then you can log in as superuser (admin), and edit this file through the browsers config inteface for most versions of it (and for most parts of the configuration).
But to switch subjects, your "corporations are a much bigger market than home users" comment is almost certianly wrong when you're not talking about an app that you sell to users.
Consider this:
1) Almost everyone who works in a corporate environment has computers to work on at work, and ones for home. Thus, almost every corporate user is also a home user.
2) Not everyone who has a computer is in a corporation. Thus, there are a lot of home users who are not corporate users.
The bottom line is that there must always be more home users than corporate users. Sure, they may not actually want to buy Mozilla, but that doesn't mean there aren't more of them.
It makes sense that Mozilla would concentrate on its primary marketshare. Especially when it does what you want. They probably assume that if you're paid to do global configs, you can figure out how. I suppose that was a wrong assumption in your case.
Are they asking to much of Windows admins?
Re:A "Beta?" (Score:4, Informative)
Make your base image with firefox installed and configured the way you want it.
If the users login with a generic login, like "computerlab" then all you have to do is make note of the location of their profile directory. Set the files in there writable only by system and administrators after you configure firefox the way you want. If you need to make any changes after that, use a GPO and have windows run a bat file on startup(when it will run as system) that replaces any changed files in the profile. Deny users the ability to create new files in c:\documents and settings\%username%\application data\mozilla\firefox\profiles. This is the easy scenario.
If your people are logging in with their own idea, then you have to work around Firefox/Mozilla's assinine profile directory naming convention, arguably the stupidest thing they've done. Everything as before, except your script that runs on computer start up has to loop through all of folders in c:\documents and settings and then find out what Firefox decided to name the default profile. *Then* you can copy your files.
IMO, the profile naming convention and the refusal to use registry settings under windows are the two biggest mistakes made by the Firefox team. Because I can't write a custom adm file to make a GPO to control firefox in a lab, I can't role it out. It takes too much of my time to configure and then work around the problems with the software. With IE, I just set a GPO and suddenly no one can run activeX components. No one can override the popup blocker, no one can set the home page or change the backgrounds.
Firefox may be more secure out of the box, but the inability to easily manage it in lab settings makes it less secure there.
Re:Next IE version. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, there may be some major annoyances that they won't be able to remove for compatibility reasons, such as ActiveX (which as you know is responsible for much of the spyware problem). What people should do is get rid of features like that completely, so that IE can be a secure browser...
Re:Next IE version. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Next IE version. (Score:2)
You can count small businesses with home users here. The many that are small enough that installing per machine is easier and cheaper than central control.
Do you have any evidence that this market is much smaller than the corporate market? I'd imagine a minority of PCs in the world are centrally managed.
Re:Next IE version. (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm not quite sure that Firefox will continue to grow much after the next version of windows... We'll see
Oh, it most certainly IS news, my fren'. (Score:2)
It IS news to MS. Their hegemony is threatened. Anything that reverses their dominance in the market is sure to be news to them.
And a word to MS: If you don't take heed, if you think that it's "Inconceivable!" that FF can upset your apple-cart, then you may be in the same unenviable position that the railroad barons were after the ascendancy of the automobil
Re:Oh, it most certainly IS news, my fren'. (Score:3, Insightful)
MS can come
Re:Uhh (Score:5, Insightful)
For developers who produce public websites it is very important. It used to be the policy of some organisations to only develop for IE viewing. That policy no longer makes sense. It would mean that more than 1 in 20 of your customers would have difficulties with your website. For a business with thousands of users (or more), like a bank, that is a real problem.
Re:Uhh (Score:3, Interesting)
It is one thing to say that 1 in 20 users have installed Firefox. It is quite another thing to prove that 1 in 20 customers of Amazon.com or your local S&L are running Firefox.
Estimates of Firefox's success or IE's decline don't tell you much unless you can break them down geographically, and by age, income, usage patterns and so on.
Re:Uhh (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be the policy of some organisations to only develop for IE viewing. That policy no longer makes sense. It would mean that more than 1 in 20 of your customers would have difficulties with your website.
1 in 10, not 1 in 20.
The important statistic here isn't the increasing Firefox usage, it's the decreasing IE usage. A year ago, IE had 95% market share, meaning that if you developed for IE only, 19 out of 20 users could use your site. That was good enough to allow IE-only development policies, especially since the majority of the 1 in 20 non-IE users out actually did have access to IE and were tech-savvy enough to realize that if it doesn't work with Opera/Netscape/Mozilla/Whatever, they should try IE. So the net effect is that a year ago, an IE-only web site annoyed about 1 in 20 users, but only drove maybe 1 in 100 away (that's a wild guess, obviously).
Now, only 9 out of 10 users have IE as their default browser, and a smaller percentage of non-IE users recognize that a site that doesn't work well will work with IE. So now an IE-only web site annoys 1 in 10 and drives away a larger percentage of those. Perhaps half? Who knows? Anyway, not only is the non-IE population twice as big, but it's more likely to be dissuaded from using your IE-only site, so the combination means the damage to your audience is several times larger.
If IE usage continues to decline, eventually IE-only development policies are going to become untenable for most web sites. I would guess that if IE usage drops as far as 80%, most developers of non-intranet web sites are going to have to test on multiple browsers and focus on standards compliance.