Why is Mozilla Firefox 1.0 better than IE ?

[Atamido]

Originally posted by jernst
If you follow the standards not only your website will look nice in compliants web browsers but it will also work in IE. Maybe it'll look a little bit less nice in IE (missing CSS rules, etc.) but it'll be 100% usable (and you'll reach 100% of your audience). Hardly. If you depend on anything more than the simplest of CSS rules, IE could render your page completely wrong. Anything from text being in the wrong places to text being covered up completely and unreadable from something else. Of course, some toying around will likely get you to something usable in IE. It just depends on the site methods being used.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Doom9
Eww.. even Neo is going to agree with me on that.. you should use CSS for that.. even IE's limited CSS support is enough to do it that way. Table layouting is so 20th century In many cases, this is very true. Most things don't require tables to look right, and would be much simpler HTML without it. This forum, for instance, would have a much smaller overhead if it were moved away from tables to something else. Heck, just leaving it with tables, but moving the formatting over to CSS would have a tremendous impact on layout overhead. Page five of this thread has 15KB of text, but 105KB of total HTML. Even a generous estimate would say you could drop the total HTML size to at least half that by using CSS. In fact, I think I will try right now just for fun.

OT, but I was going to post this page (http://commo.de/oe/oe.html) I had been working on recently. I will get around to finishing it one of these days, but it is implemented entirely in HTML+CSS, no javascript. Doesn't do anything in IE since IE doesn't support much.

[Atamido]

Keeping the tables in, I was able to get that page down to 90KB with a 2KB CSS file. That is only with simple changes that could be reasonably expected to be made in the board's engine. Also, that only included the message areas. A few more could have been gotten in that area too, but not much. I would estimate that with the minimal changes, you could get it down to ~85KB with the tables.

Replacing the tables with something else is of course not really practical as that would be an overhaul of everything.

One big benefit of using classes for the layout, and using FireFox, is FireFox allows you to set your own CSS settings to overide a sites settings. So, one could make Doom9 appear any way they wanted by using their own CSS file.

[neo75903]

themed doom9 interface or skinning :-)
The only way to make a site looks exactly on all browsers and platforms is to make use of flash. But that is shooting a fly with a canon in most cases. And updating the site frequently can be painful too.

[jernst]

Originally posted by neo75903
themed doom9 interface or skinning :-)
The only way to make a site looks exactly on all browsers and platforms is to make use of flash. But that is shooting a fly with a canon in most cases. And updating the site frequently can be painful too.

Flash is not a good choice when it comes to show text content IMHO. Many user agent won't be able to access the information (text browsers, search engine spiders, etc.). Not to mention the data overhead.

[neo75903]

idd, i am into java server pages, tried flash long time ago, it was a pain in the ass to get things done.

[neo75903]

Nice designed site, but notice the shadow drop on the tables. It looks very nice on FireFox, but it looks horrible on IE.
Looks like the world is turning around in favour of FireFox :)

http://www.internetvetsfortruth.org/

[zilog jones]

Meh, I'm not that bothered about Firefox. I've been using Opera for over 2 years now, and I'm not gonna change over because I like my web browser, Usenet *and* e-mail (POP3 and IMAP) clients all in one program. I know it's probably slower starting up than any other browser, but I've got used to that.

Anyway, what does Firefox have that Opera didn't have first (besides being faster)?

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by Pamel
Why would people not use PNG if it can be a drop in replacement for all of their non-animated GIFs, but take less space? People are too lazy.
Not necessarily. Maybe the GIF files simply turned out to be smaller, because the used application doesn´t really know how to create them. MS Photo Editor, for example, apparently can´t create good PNG files, thus GIF files seem to be smaller(at 256 colors).
That doesn´t mean PNG is bad, only that some people won´t know how good it CAN be.

1) No ActiveX support
I guess that can be counted as a pro. It might easily be a con as well.
2) Tabbed browsing
<ignore>So? I don´t really see the advantage of that - aside from a small space gain in the task bar. It makes surfing less clear, IMO, as one doesn´t really know which sites are open.</ignore>

Well, I stand corrected - partially. It IS an advantage, especially when browsing a forum - one simple opens the threads in different tabs without having to switch back to the original listing every time.

It still would not be of much use when browsing different sites, though - as you don´t see all the tabs in the task bar.
3) Popup blocker
Good point. How good does it work?
4) Lots of extensions (plugins)
Worth a thought.
5) Multi OS
So? That´s nice, but not really something I´d tie my decision of browser to.
6) Faster loading of web content than IE (dynamic table resizing)
Interesting.
7) hum... just not M$
True.
8) Adblock. That extension alone is awesome enough to warrant a bullet point.
I´m not sure if extensions should be counted as features of the browser itself. The ability to include them, but the extensions?
9) Standards Compliant
A very important point - one of the reasons I nearly switched.
10) Exploits fixed in a (more) timely manner
Good to know.
11) Built-in Google search bar, makes searching a lot faster than having to go to www.google.com first!
That any good? I use to have a "google" icon in the task bar(quickstart) - one click and I have google. Typing "www.google.com" doesn´t take that long either.
I think that search bar is rather irritating.
12) "Live bookmarks". Subscribe to RSS feeds on sites that have them and get a list of headlines from all your sites right in your bookmarks sidebar, instead of having to visit each site seperately.
I don´t understand that. ?
13) support pngs properly (alpha transparency)
Well, IE supports it partially, at least. But it´s a good point indeed.
14) svg enabled builds exist (no need for plugin)
?
15) Many useful extensions, including:
[quote]15a: Mouse Gestures
[quote]15b: BugMeNot, for all those annoying sign-up only sites
See #4 and #8
16) Lots of pretty themes
Hmm.
18) The download manager
19) The password manager
Interesting features.
20) The edit/undo function
edit/undo?
21) Don't like how a site looks? Edit the CSS on the fly. (using the web developer extension)
I´m not sure if I should think this is a good feature. But it´s interesting nonetheless.
22) because even the MS security chief uses Firefox.
So? That´s not really an argument, IMO.
23) If you choose "Begin finding when you begin typing" in options/advaned/accessibility you wont even need cltr+f.
Hmm. Sounds strange, but might be wort trying.

Here´s something against Firefox, I only read it on a forum, so I can´t say if true(though I see no reason why not):

I've found that it's waiting on the current page to fully load first before you can click to the next.

Doesn´t sound too attractive...

All in all, I still hesitate, though I´d like to switch. Is there a "theme" that emulates the look and feel of IE?
(I´m too used to it, I´m afraid.)

--

As for the HTML discussion: A website should be HTML compliant. Any browser must be able to render that. If not - who cares?

It´s us who create sites, be it professionally or as hobby who have the responsibility of using proper code. The average user can´t spell HTML, let alone understand it.

[communist]

Not sure how many times it has been said - but one of main advantages of tabbed browsing over several browser windows is hard to explain but here is one of the things that can give you a hint about how much cooler it is ;)
Originally posted by someone at some other forum
Additionally, if you select "Load links in background" Then the new tabs will stay in the background, letting you open up several at once from one page before viewing them.

This is something I always thought of one of the best things about tabbed browsing, viewing a page and just letting links load in the background by middle-clicking on them while keep keep viewing the first page. No need to constantly jump between several instances of your browser :)

Anyway when people really want to stick to IE - yeah stick to it .. sometimes people are just.. erm.. too comfy with it. I certainly dont have a reason to go back to IE :o


Here´s something against Firefox, I only read it on a forum, so I can´t say if true(though I see no reason why not):
I've found that it's waiting on the current page to fully load first before you can click to the next.
Doesn´t sound too attractive...

Huh? Mozilla loads the page/link I click on and doesnt wait for current page to be loaded completely :|

[jernst]

Originally posted by Cyberman

All in all, I still hesitate, though I´d like to switch. Is there a "theme" that emulates the look and feel of IE?
(I´m too used to it, I´m afraid.)


Look here that's exactly what you want: http://firefoxie.net/

After that you won't be able to recognise firefox from ie (except that you won't get those spyware and adds and will benefit from all the features discussed here).

[Wilbert]

... and you can import all bookmarks from IE (and other browsers) during install :)

[dragongodz]

22) because even the MS security chief uses Firefox.
So? That´s not really an argument, IMO.
so an MS employee, and i dont mean commen grunt, uses Firefox instead of IE and you dont think that may indicate Firefox is just maybe better than IE ? :confused:

Here´s something against Firefox, I only read it on a forum, so I can´t say if true(though I see no reason why not):
try it yourself and then you will know.

Meh, I'm not that bothered about Firefox. I've been using Opera for over 2 years now, and I'm not gonna change over because I like my web browser, Usenet *and* e-mail (POP3 and IMAP) clients all in one program.
meh, then why did you bother posting such a pointless post ? :devil:
Firefox is the browser component of Mozilla. if you want mail etc all in one the Mozilla is what you would get. if you already use a different mail program and just want a good browser then Firefox is a smaller package with no waste.

Anyway, what does Firefox have that Opera didn't have first (besides being faster)?
what version is opera up to again ? and Firefox's version is ? if you want some differences though... hmm how about Firefox being free with no adds - opera pay for no adds. actually i could go back all the way to netscapes early versions(Mozilla was started by netscape releasing the source to what was going to be netscape 5) and start picking things it had before opera, javascript for instance, but whats the point ? its what they can do now thats important.
lets not start some silly war of browsers please. if you want to compare how Firefox performs you need to actually try it out.

[virus]

Originally posted by dragongodz
if you already use a different mail program and just want a good browser then Firefox is a smaller package with no waste.
But you can have everything with an even smaller package... :)
The full installer package for Opera 7.54 (without Java) is 3.5 MB, Firefox 1.0 is 4.7 MB. But of course you're right, Opera is truly a competitor for Mozilla, while Firefox is a different (simpler) thing.

its what they can do now thats important.
lets not start some silly war of browsers please. if you want to compare how Firefox performs you need to actually try it out.
Done :)
I use FF as secondary browser. It has a very reliable rendering engine. But imho it can't stand a chance against Opera, sorry. Too much features that Opera has and FF not - and I'm only speaking of pure browsing. Just try to click on the various menus, watch the amount of options available, or see how deeply you can configure the GUI with a few clicks in Opera - without the need for extensions - to see what I mean.

[jernst]

Originally posted by virus
Done :)
I use FF as secondary browser. It has a very reliable rendering engine. But imho it can't stand a chance against Opera, sorry. Too much features that Opera has and FF not - and I'm only speaking of pure browsing. Just try to click on the various menus, watch the amount of options available, or see how deeply you can configure the GUI with a few clicks in Opera - without the need for extensions - to see what I mean.

The purpose of firefox is to don't be bloated with features that only a few will use. If you are one of these few users that need a particular feature just extend your browser the way you like. While, if you are a normal user you won't be confused with too many options and features.

Btw I have nothing against opera and having more compliant browsers on the market is always a good thing. I tend to think that gecko implements more css and is more compliant than opera though; but then again it's only my opinion.

Another advantage of firefox is its opensourceness; i tend to favour community driven projects.

[virus]

Originally posted by jernst
The purpose of firefox is to don't be bloated with features that only a few will use. If you are one of these few users that need a particular feature just extend your browser the way you like.
Both approaches have their pros and cons I guess. I like the way additional stuff is integrated in Opera. It usually doesn't create problems and it's not confusing - and you can easily remove buttons you don't need from the GUI. The next major revision (7.60) won't even load the built-in extensions (mail, irc, newsfeed/newsgroups reader, voice support etc.) unless you use them, trying to keep everything even smaller and faster.

Of course M$ would never do such things like keeping size and resource use small... can you imagine IE packed with all the features that Opera has? I guess the download size would be at least 100 MB :)

I tend to think that gecko implements more css and is more compliant than opera though; but then again it's only my opinion.
well, imho CSS support is the only point where Opera in on par with Gecko. While I have the impression that sites with Java and Javascript work better with FF - those have been the weakest points in Opera for years. Luckily enough Opera's engine has been improved enough to render OK so many pages that went rendered poorly just some versions ago. The proof is that now I can see a lot of webpages where both Opera and Firefox do exactly the same rendering... and where IE6 does a totally different thing :D

But, still, I feel Gecko is a bit superior. (and that makes FF a perfect emergency browser :))

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by jernst
Look here that's exactly what you want: http://firefoxie.net/
After that you won't be able to recognise firefox from ie (except that you won't get those spyware and adds and will benefit from all the features discussed here).

Hmm. Worth a try. Will check it. thx.

Originally posted by dragongodz
so an MS employee, and i dont mean commen grunt, uses Firefox instead of IE and you dont think that may indicate Firefox is just maybe better than IE ? :confused:
No. I think it´s an indication that this person likes Firefox more than IE. I´d be more convinced if the entire company uses Firefox instead of IE...

try it yourself and then you will know.
That´s what I intend to do.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Cyberman
I guess that can be counted as a pro. It might easily be a con as well.

Frankly I have yet to see what activeX is really good for over a regular plugin. Anything? Security holes sure. But does it have any important widely used features that could not be implemented in a plugin?

Originally posted by Cyberman
So? I don´t really see the advantage of that - aside from a small space gain in the task bar. It makes surfing less clear, IMO, as one doesn´t really know which sites are open.

Well lets put it this way. Do you surf with multiple windows?? Have you ever looked at how much resources such as RAM each window uses? More than just one window by alot. Instead of using multiple windows use multiple tabs. And guess what!? You still only have the one window running with only minimal extra resources.

Originally posted by Cyberman
Good point. How good does it work?

The popup blocker is excelent. It works as well as the best pay popup blockers only free.

Originally posted by Cyberman
Worth a thought.

Well here is another thought. Writing extensions etc for MOZILLA* is easier than IE by a long shot. Being easier means more people can and will write them. More people writing them means more variety. More variety means some rather unique and specialised extensions you would not have otherwise seen. Some extensions are so special that they only work for a single site. Using much the same skill set you can even rewrite the way the browser looks and behaves without having to rewrite the browser interface like IE as well.

Originally posted by Cyberman
So? That´s nice, but not really something I´d tie my decision of browser to.

Being multi-OS does not have to be something your decision is tied to. But it should be something that weighs on your decision. You like Windows today. But what if in the future a version of Windows comes out that you don't like. And Microsoft finds a way to make those using old Windows OS second class citizens at best. You decide you want to switch OS only to realise what a mess you have gotten into. Oh and by the way Longhorn is comming with Longhorn only technologies. Technologies that MS is going to leverage to make all old Windows installs second class citizens on the Web. And further make all non Windows OS excluded from the web. Or that is their plan anyway. You and I both know it will not go over well. But since we know it is coming we can at least plan for it. Going from Mozilla under Windows to Linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris, BeOS, or any other OS for that matter is quick and easy. Painless almost.

Originally posted by Cyberman
I´m not sure if extensions should be counted as features of the browser itself. The ability to include them, but the extensions?

As a feature of the browser no. But you should try it. Adblock is an awesome reason to use the browser. Sure similar functionality can be achieved by caching proxy servers and custom host files. But none of those solutions are as simple, powerfull, or configurable as adblock. There is nothing like it I have seen for any other browser anywhere else. Truly impressive and indespensable.

Originally posted by Cyberman
That any good? I use to have a "google" icon in the task bar(quickstart) - one click and I have google. Typing "www.google.com" doesn´t take that long either.
I think that search bar is rather irritating.

Actually the google search box on the URL is rather small and works excelent. Unobtrusive is the word. And if you don't like it just remove it quick and easy.

Originally posted by Cyberman
I don´t understand that. ?

Do you visit geek sites regularly to browse the headlines? Does it take a while to load all those sites? Imagine having toolbar buttons that activate dropdown lists of all the latest headlines without loading the respective sites. Then click on any headline and it loads it directly in a tab for you. That is what live bookmarks do for you. It works for the likes of slashdot, the register, and groklaw quite well. It also works for BBC news and alot of other general sites as well.

Originally posted by Cyberman
Interesting features.


Mozillas password manager is much better than IE's. And of course IE does not have it's own download manager. But Mozilla* does and it works quite well. Further no one mentioned the cookie manager. IE attempts a similar feature. But at best it does not work right and is nowhere near as usefull. You can set Mozilla to prompt you on how to handle all cookies. Further you can set up cookie rules quick and easy that will block all cookies from a specific site, allow, or allow just for the "session" and all permanently. Keeps alot of those tracking cookies off your PC. Also there is a software install manager. Though this has more to do with plugins, extensions, etc. But unlike IE which is the driveby download King. Firefox blocks all software installs by default. Getting your permission to allow a site to install before it does.

Originally posted by Cyberman
I´m not sure if I should think this is a good feature. But it´s interesting nonetheless.

It's a frigging magnificent feature! Grampy can't see anything without his coke bottle glasses and even then has trouble? You can create a simple style sheet that will apply itself to all pages making them generally easier to read and use. Have you ever run upon badly designed sites? Sites that are hard to read and awful color schemes? Ever wished there was anything you could do? Well now there is. :D

Originally posted by Cyberman
So? That´s not really an argument, IMO.

I think it rather is. He is the guy that Microsoft should be listening to more. If your security guy won't use your product for security reasons then perhaps there is a problem. Are you at all concerned with security?

Originally posted by Cyberman
As for the HTML discussion: A website should be HTML compliant. Any browser must be able to render that. If not - who cares?

If websites should be compliant, but no one cares if they are not then where is the incentive to make them compliant?

Originally posted by Cyberman
It´s us who create sites, be it professionally or as hobby who have the responsibility of using proper code. The average user can´t spell HTML, let alone understand it.

Incorect. Mentaly handicapped people can understand HTML. and so can the average joe. It is all rather simple and easy. Now that does not mean the average joe will be able to quickly and easily create complex pages. But as languages go HTML is one of the simplest in the world.

[sysKin]

Nearly all of firefox' features can be dismissed with "interesting, but I don't need it". However, think about it this way - if you had a browser with no history and no bookmarks/favorites, and someone said "there is a better browser" you'd probably say the same thing - "interesting, but I remember my favorite sites, and I use a piece of paper to remember all I need". And there we go again, is browser history useful or not, and many people would say "interesting, not good enough".

IE has some of features you appreciate, but it's unreasonable to assume that it has exactly the features you need, nothing more and nothing less. I can pretty much bet it's far from it - I agree, they are not essential, but is "back" button essential? Only after you got used to it, not before.

[Mug Funky]

a friend of mine can't live without mouse gestures... he'll install them on the sly when you're not looking :)

good point there, syskin

[Neo Neko]

I find myself doing mouse guestures in Windows Explorer, Open Office, and many other non supporting programs. They are like crack. I have to have them. What's worse is I have a 5 button Optical intellimouse. I just about can't function on anything less than a 3 button scroll mouse any more. Give me a 2 button mouse and I about want to break out the sticks so me can make fire.

[RadicalEd]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I find myself doing mouse guestures in Windows Explorer, Open Office, and many other non supporting programs. They are like crack. I have to have them. What's worse is I have a 5 button Optical intellimouse. I just about can't function on anything less than a 3 button scroll mouse any more. Give me a 2 button mouse and I about want to break out the sticks so me can make fire.

DON'T GO ANYWHERE NEAR A MAC

[zilog jones]

Yeah, those new iMac mice are even worse - it's like style over logic! I was messing around with one in a shop, and for the first few seconds I was thinking "Where the hell's the button!?!?"

I'm too used to wheel mice now, too. Whenever I'm on one of the older PCs in my college with the old-skool Microsoft mice like this:
http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~qwerty/mouse/mmouse1.jpg
I keep trying to push that stupid little groove in the middle!

@Mug Funky:
I do that too! Hee hee hee!

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by RadicalEd
DON'T GO ANYWHERE NEAR A MAC

Nothing wrong with Macs. My Intellimouse is USB. Mac had USB long before PC. And it infact supports it quite well.

[neo75903]

Windows users tend to compalin quicker on a mac then someone who is starting to use a pc. That is my observation. Guess Windows users are jsut used to some 'habits' which can be frustrating in a new environment.

[zilog jones]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Nothing wrong with Macs. My Intellimouse is USB. Mac had USB long before PC. And it infact supports it quite well.
It's the whole getting used to one-button mice that's the problem - especially if you're used to wheel mice!

[Mug Funky]

sure a Mac is fine when you plug a decent mouse into it.

my uni is full of macs with those awful "no-button" mice.

this is in the design labs! the mouse is the most used tool in design, that is if you don't have a tablet and stylus.

the RSI you get from these terrible armbusters has to be felt to be believed. you have to pinch down awkwardly on the sides with your thumb and little finger in order to achieve the simplest of mouse operations, the "click-and-drag" (no doubt the next on MS's patent applications list). after a marathon of clicking and dragging at submissions time, i was ready to destroy the damn thing, but my arm was simply too weak to do it. it took several days to be able to use a computer again.

in my opinion, Macs were fine at the g3 stage - pretty colourful computers, cute and non-threatening designs, contrasted with the beige of PCs. they could be force-quit and reset without pain when they crashed.

now it's all gone to shite - there's no reset button, which i find an extremely arrogant thing for a designer to do. it says "i don't need this button - This Computer Will Never Crash™". of course this isn't the case. thankfully these machines can't do without a power cord, which becomes the de-facto reset button. you wouldn't want a laptop to crash, or you'd be there all night.

[neo75903]

Originally posted by Mug Funky

now it's all gone to shite - there's no reset button, which i find an extremely arrogant thing for a designer to do. it says "i don't need this button - This Computer Will Never Crash™". of course this isn't the case. thankfully these machines can't do without a power cord, which becomes the de-facto reset button. you wouldn't want a laptop to crash, or you'd be there all night.

At least they are trying to make it crash free and the developers will work harder to accomplish this because users complain about missing the reset button :)
BUT i have also to admit that my windows is pretty solid and i am talking about win2k, forget XP, holding my haert for upcoming longhorn.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Cyberman
Not necessarily. Maybe the GIF files simply turned out to be smaller, because the used application doesn´t really know how to create them. MS Photo Editor, for example, apparently can´t create good PNG files, thus GIF files seem to be smaller(at 256 colors).
That doesn´t mean PNG is bad, only that some people won´t know how good it CAN be. That is no excuse for professional website developers. They have read that PNG is supposed to be better, if the don't investigate why they don't see the results, they are sloppy.

That is like someone deciding to test out an Apache/Linux web server solution to compare to their existing IIS/Windows solution and finding it to be slower and so not using it. A good worker would have investigated why this happens, and maybe discovered DMA wasn't being used on the harddrives, or any other number of performance reducing misconfigurations.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by dragongodz
actually i could go back all the way to netscapes early versions(Mozilla was started by netscape releasing the source to what was going to be netscape 5) According to this interview (http://arstechnica.com/columns/linux/collins-interview.ars/2) by one of the developers in charge, what was going to be Netscape 5 was never released due to some poor decisions in upper management. He never says what happenned to it, but it is obvious that Gecko (the HTML rendering engine in Mozilla/FF) is a completely different engine not being anywhere near release at the time that Netscape 5 was ready. I imagine that they probably used some of the code from Netscape 5, but there is nothing to indicate that.

It's a minor point, but just for the sake of correctness the quote would have been correct with a 6 instead of a 5.

[dragongodz]

what was going to be Netscape 5 was never released due to some poor decisions in upper management. He never says what happenned to it
I imagine that they probably used some of the code from Netscape 5, but there is nothing to indicate that.
It's a minor point, but just for the sake of correctness the quote would have been correct with a 6 instead of a 5
ummm no. sorry but you are wrong. go here
http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.phtml?title=Intro
and you will read
Netscape was the company that created the open-source Mozilla project by contributing pre-5.0 Netscape beta code. This code was eventually abandoned in favor of a ground-up rewrite of the browser, from which future Netscape releases were made.
the Netscape 5 early beta snapshot(to call it what it really was) source was used/added to for a release before it was decided to rewrite the layout engine etc. see my reply below.

it is obvious that Gecko (the HTML rendering engine in Mozilla/FF) is a completely different engine not being anywhere near release at the time that Netscape 5 was ready.
i never said Gecko came straight from Netscape 5 source code, it didnt. go here
http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/faq.html
and you will find
Why are we building a new layout engine?
The original Mozilla browser, first released as Navigator 1.0, was developed rapidly by a small team that was passionate about creating the next killer app -- and they succeeded wildly. Now that the web has evolved, Netscape has assembed the finest team available to redesign and redevelop the next generation layout engine upon which it will build future products. Gecko enables a pioneering new class of dynamic content that is more interactive and offers greater presentation control to Web developers, using open and recommended Internet standards instead of proprietary APIs.
now being a rewrite, redesign, redevelop, whatever you want to call it means much/most of the original source was thrown out. to think that none of the basic functions etc were not just copied though would be silly. so Gecko may now contain 1% or more or less of the original code(who knows for sure after all thats been done), which may not impact the actual rendering at all, but that doesnt negate where the whole project started from. :)

so i stand by my statement - Mozilla was started with Netscape 5(beta) source code. :D

[Atamido]

Originally posted by dragongodz
ummm no. sorry but you are wrong. go here
http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.phtml?title=Intro
and you will read

<snip>

so i stand by my statement - Mozilla was started with Netscape 5(beta) source code. :D Those statements are at odds with the comments by Scott Collins, and for what it's worth, I think I believe Scott more. Some of the shell may have come from Netscape 5, but that is a pretty small part of the whole. The main part of it is Gecko, and that didn't come from anything else. For example, the Linux KDE browser Konqueror was able to be converted to use Gecko in only four days (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/11/2119249&tid=154&tid=121&tid=8). So, it's less about the shell, and more about what's underneath. I would be curious though to know when XUL (Mozilla's shell system) was developed.

Anyway, that's all off topic. There are lots of benefits to using FF, but even assuming it had only the external features of IE, I would still use it simply for the excellent Gecko rendering engine.

[Atamido]

Here (http://commo.de/fourblocks2.html) is a small test page that I was making to test out a design. It renders fine in FF/Mozilla, but IE does some weird stuff. Ignoring the fact that it doesn't do the alpha in 32bit RGBA PNG correctly, it also positions it oddly, moving stragely when the page is resized smaller. It also doesn't resize the image. And at some window sizes, the rectangles of text will jumble up. Very weird. Yet another demo of how IE is b0rked.

[dragongodz]

Those statements are at odds with the comments by Scott Collins, and for what it's worth, I think I believe Scott more. Some of the shell may have come from Netscape 5, but that is a pretty small part of the whole. The main part of it is Gecko, and that didn't come from anything else
no actually it doesnt. try reading my whole reply. i already said Gecko never came from Netscape 5 source code, try reading that second link and what i quoted. but hey believe what you want.

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Frankly I have yet to see what activeX is really good for
I have no idea. But I guess it´s got some use...

Well lets put it this way. Do you surf with multiple windows?? Have you ever looked at how much resources such as RAM each window uses? More than just one window by alot. Instead of using multiple windows use multiple tabs. And guess what!? You still only have the one window running with only minimal extra resources.
Ah - now that is a good argument. From this point of view, it seems to be a good feature indeed.

Being multi-OS does not have to be something your decision is tied to. But it should be something that weighs on your decision. You like Windows today. But what if in the future a version of Windows comes out that you don't like.
Hmm. I didn´t think of that. Good point.

It's a frigging magnificent feature! Grampy can't see anything without his coke bottle glasses and even then has trouble? You can create a simple style sheet that will apply itself to all pages making them generally easier to read and use. Have you ever run upon badly designed sites? Sites that are hard to read and awful color schemes? Ever wished there was anything you could do? Well now there is. :D
I saw that point. But I fear that dummy-users will apply bad stylesheets and blame the site designer.

I think it rather is. He is the guy that Microsoft should be listening to more. If your security guy won't use your product for security reasons then perhaps there is a problem. Are you at all concerned with security?
Maybe I should rethink my opinion on that.

If websites should be compliant, but no one cares if they are not then where is the incentive to make them compliant?
Well, someone has to start, right? Where is the incentive to do anything when there is no immediate gain?

Incorect. Mentaly handicapped people can understand HTML. and so can the average joe. It is all rather simple and easy. Now that does not mean the average joe will be able to quickly and easily create complex pages. But as languages go HTML is one of the simplest in the world.
You misunderstood me. Or maybe I should have been more clearly.
I meant that the average user doesn´t care WHY the site looks bad - if it´s the browsers fault or the designers - so he won´t check the sources to see wheter it´s OK or not.
Thus those who create sites should keep them as W3C compliant as possible, to force clean HTML browsers, by not using the marquee tag and such.

Originally posted by Pamel
That is no excuse for professional website developers. They have read that PNG is supposed to be better, if the don't investigate why they don't see the results, they are sloppy.

I wasn´t talking about professional developers. Anyone using Photoshop(for example) would create good pictures simply because the program(mers) think(s) in advance.

However, someone only doing it as a hobby, having only Ms Photo Editor, won´t realize that there are more ways to save pictures than simply saying SAVE.
(unless searching for ways to optimize)

Originally posted by Pamel
Here (http://commo.de/fourblocks2.html) is a small test page that I was making to test out a design. It renders fine in FF/Mozilla, but IE does some weird stuff. Ignoring the fact that it doesn't do the alpha in 32bit RGBA PNG correctly, it also positions it oddly, moving stragely when the page is resized smaller. It also doesn't resize the image. And at some window sizes, the rectangles of text will jumble up. Very weird. Yet another demo of how IE is b0rked.

Holy cow! I didn´t realize there´s a picture until I read about it. IE didn´t display it at all at first.

[M7S]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
now it's all gone to shite - there's no reset button, which i find an extremely arrogant thing for a designer to do. it says "i don't need this button - This Computer Will Never Crash™". of course this isn't the case. thankfully these machines can't do without a power cord, which becomes the de-facto reset button. you wouldn't want a laptop to crash, or you'd be there all night.
That actually happened to a freind of mine. The laptop she got from her school crashed when she tried to listen to a CD. She couldn't get it to restart until the batteries where empty.

I miss those old, cute, little macs with black and white screens. One of those where the first computer I ever touched. I tought that those Mac's where the coolest thing in the world. :D

I couldn't resist writing this even if it's complitely OT. Sorry

M7S

[Mug Funky]

If your security guy won't use your product for security reasons then perhaps there is a problem.

i don't recall reading that the security guy at MS used firefox exclusively. it's just good business to know your competition, and as far as i'm aware, the guy just said he had to download a security patch for firefox.

of course, if it were me, and i had a computer with both FF and IE sitting on it, i know which one i'd be using more. i just find it a bit simplistic to imply that the chief of MS security uses firefox and only firefox.

that said, IE is a big slow pain in the bottom, and i only use it when i come across a site that doesn't work in Mozilla. if it works in IE, i send off an email to the webmaster and tell them to fix their site so that it works on a real browser. we all should be doing this - the customer is always right, after all.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by dragongodz
no actually it doesnt. try reading my whole reply. i already said Gecko never came from Netscape 5 source code, try reading that second link and what i quoted. but hey believe what you want. It isn't clear from your post "what" doesn't, so I'll just continue. :confused: I didn't say that you said that she said that Gecko came from Netscape 5. I was restating a point as part of a logic train. Simply that there was a browser, with a different engine, that was never released that was Netscape 5. What is Mozilla never had enough code in it from the Netscape 5 project to ever be considered as an opensourced version of Netscape 5, despite what the mozillazine site says about it. And I believe this due to comments from a specific developer that was a key character at Netscape when all of that happenned. Just for kicks though I reread the second link that you provided. Still a good webpage for Gecko info.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Cyberman
I wasn´t talking about professional developers. I was though. ;) There are a lot of huge websites with millions of page views each day using static, single frame, gifs for no reason. CNN.com has 58 gifs on it's main page totaling 44KB. Consider the amount of bandwidth saving a page like that with millions of views each day would have. Also think of the time that millions of dialup users would save waiting for that page to load. A page by Average Joe that uses GIFs, and gets 10 page views per month isn't as big a concern, and is certainly excusable. Holy cow! I didn´t realize there´s a picture until I read about it. IE didn´t display it at all at first. Strange, the image doesn't appear in IE until your window is resized... What an incredible browser.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by M7S
That actually happened to a freind of mine. The laptop she got from her school crashed when she tried to listen to a CD. She couldn't get it to restart until the batteries where empty. That happenned to a friend of mine yesterday, and she called me up to ask me what to do. She had a Dell though so I just told her to remove the battery and it was fine. Then later last night she totally gave me the cold shoulder at a party. I feel so used.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
i don't recall reading that the security guy at MS used firefox exclusively. it's just good business to know your competition, and as far as i'm aware, the guy just said he had to download a security patch for firefox.

I don't think anyone said he used it exclusively. Hell even I don't use FireFox exclusively. I also use konqueror a good bit and IE on a rare occasion. Even if he wanted to use FireFox exclusively I don't think it is possible for him. Because if ever there were a company widely deploying Microsoft Windows exclusive services it would be Microsoft after all. So it is basically a given that he would have to use IE and Outlook for the intranet. But my guess is that when he ventures out on the Internet it is with the full armor of Firefox and not the screen door mesh of IE. And that would speak volumes. I trust my intranet don't you? But random sites on the internet are a completely different deal.

[dragongodz]

It isn't clear from your post "what" doesn't, so I'll just continue.
his remarks do not conflict with what i said. is that so hard for you to understand ?

Simply that there was a browser, with a different engine, that was never released that was Netscape 5.
yes and this source code was used to START the Mozilla project.

What is Mozilla never had enough code in it from the Netscape 5 project to ever be considered as an opensourced version of Netscape 5, despite what the mozillazine site says about it.
what is Mozilla NOW probably has very little of the original Netscape 5 source true but thats got nothing to do with where or how it was started. i already said that too. infact there was a very quick release called Navigator 1.0(way back in 1998) that would have been a great deal of Netscape source. if i come across where to download it again i will post it. i never said Mozilla was an open source version of Netscape 5 for the record, i said(again) that Mozilla was started with the Netscape 5 source code. if you cant understand the difference then there is no point discussing it with you.

anyway i wont bother to argue it anymore because its there for anyone to read on Mozillas own web pages.
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html
[B]1.1) What is Mozilla?[B]
Mozilla is a project to continue Netscape Communicator as an open project. The project is maintained by employees of Netscape (now a division of AOL), RedHat, some other companies, as well as contributors from the community.
[B]1.2) On what is Mozilla based?[B]
The Mozilla project started near the end of life of the 4.x line of Netscape Communicator. Originally, the plan was just to re-stabilize the code and release 5.0, but it was decided within the community that the more ambitious changes that were planned for later integration were close to being ready. The old layout engine, networking engine, and several of the older modules were gutted, and much later, the sources reached the point where Netscape was comfortable making a release, and so Netscape 6.0 was released.
there were of course builds of Mozilla well before Netscape 6 was released.

[virus]

since this site is full of people using FF, I'd like to ask a question about extensions. I've read some stuff all over the net and a point struck me: what if someone use a 3rd party extension to FF to spread a virus/trojan/malware/<insert whatever form of evil software you hate the most here>?

I mean, extensions are not skins (images, ini files, maybe some CSS stuff); they're full programs, which can provide every sort of functionality. I know that FF has an auto-update function that downloads from mozilla.org, and that extensions posted there are "checked" before being made available.

But what kind of check is performed (the code may not do evident things - or maybe contain a time bomb)? Are we sure it's performed before millions of users auto-update FF with a new version containing malicious code? Do the people at mozilla.org have the resources to keep on checking all the versions of all the extensions that get written as time goes by? (I won't speak about extensions not hosted on trusted sites - I guess most of you avoid them altogether)

Of course, I bet most of you will reply: "that didn't happen in the past". Right. But since FF is supposed to take over the world, how much time is going to pass before it becomes so widespread that evildoers start to regard at it as an opportunity to do damage, earn money, and similar things?

[Mug Funky]

good point there...

maybe an email to mozilla.org could answer that... i have no idea but i can think of a few simple measures. couldn't the browser run a new extension in a sort of "debug" mode and check if any nastiness resides within, then warn the user? whether it does this or not i don't know.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by virus
since this site is full of people using FF, I'd like to ask a question about extensions. I've read some stuff all over the net and a point struck me: what if someone use a 3rd party extension to FF to spread a virus/trojan/malware/<insert whatever form of evil software you hate the most here>?

Extensions are not so much programs as they are scripts and layouts that use the engine to add functionality to the engine. There are some exceptions. But as a rule they are generally bound by the sandbox the program creates. The sandbox being the browser as opposed to IE where the sandbox is your entire PC.

Originally posted by virus
I mean, extensions are not skins (images, ini files, maybe some CSS stuff); they're full programs, which can provide every sort of functionality. I know that FF has an auto-update function that downloads from mozilla.org, and that extensions posted there are "checked" before being made available.

But what kind of check is performed (the code may not do evident things - or maybe contain a time bomb)?

As to what kind of check the organization does I can't say. But since all the projects hosted there are opensource writing such a virus would probably require a truly skilled user indeed. Not only would they have to circumvent the program sandbox. But they would have to hide it in plain sight as well. Not an entirely easy task. At the slightest inkling of trouble anyone could look at all the code and find out exactly what is going on. So even if there was some sort of critical exploit chances of it reaching epidemic status are lessened. It isn't like Microsoft and their closed source philosiphy where a vulnerability does not exist untill they acknowledge it. Whether or not it is being massively exploited. Ask any network admin about security through obscurity and they will tell you that it is mostly oxymoron. Likewise security through trade secrets is a similar situation.

Originally posted by virus
Are we sure it's performed before millions of users auto-update FF with a new version containing malicious code?

Couldn't they just as easily auto-update with a clean or benign version at the first sign of trouble?

Originally posted by virus
Do the people at mozilla.org have the resources to keep on checking all the versions of all the extensions that get written as time goes by? (I won't speak about extensions not hosted on trusted sites - I guess most of you avoid them altogether)

No they don't have those kind of resources. No organization does. The good thing is that we don't have to rely on them like we would Microsoft. Because anyone else can do it for them. Unlike closed source programs.

Originally posted by virus
Of course, I bet most of you will reply: "that didn't happen in the past". Right. But since FF is supposed to take over the world, how much time is going to pass before it becomes so widespread that evildoers start to regard at it as an opportunity to do damage, earn money, and similar things?

Well even if it does it will not have the same impact as browsers like IE currently have. Being opensource ayone and everyone can fix it. No complex debugging only to have to hack a binary patch to mitigate it while waiting for the vendor to do something more permanent as has sometimes been seen in the case of IE. It is part and parcle of why opensource is so great and becoming infectious.

[virus]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
But as a rule they are generally bound by the sandbox the program creates. The sandbox being the browser as opposed to IE where the sandbox is your entire PC.
Well, FF has local file access. And aren't extensions allowed to write/access config files (and thus access your disk)? Can they connect to the net? I guess they can. Can you control what sites are accessed in a user-friendly way?

Couldn't they just as easily auto-update with a clean or benign version at the first sign of trouble?

I don't know. Does the auto-updater allow to revert to a previous version of an extension? Anyway there's still a problem: what if the "first sign of trouble" happens simply too late, when damage is already done?

Being opensource ayone and everyone can fix it. No complex debugging only to have to hack a binary patch to mitigate it while waiting for the vendor to do something more permanent as has sometimes been seen in the case of IE. It is part and parcle of why opensource is so great and becoming infectious.
Personally, I disagree - I think this is highly debatable. Security is the only field I can think of where opensource-ness may backfire. Remember when snippets of the IE5 code were published on the net? After a couple of days a flaw was found and a hack was made public. AFAIK nobody found it before the code was published. So, yes, malicious code may be spotted by simply looking at the source... but also security flaws.

It has been said on this thread that the code for formatting text in the engine was so complex that nobody could even understand it. What if a really skilled hacker actually goes through it, understands it and finds a flaw? We know that open-source code is usually high-quality... but even a world-class programmer can have a bad day and make a mistake. Having the source available makes things easier for everyone - including hackers. If they're faster (or smarter) than the good guys at discovering potential problems... well, you're cooked.

What I mean is that FF's security must come exclusively from high-quality programming. They don't have the "shield" of secret sourcecode that helps keeping the holes secret. Of course, you'll say that if they get public, they can be fixed... looks like a chicken-and-egg problem, I know, but this is the only point where I cannot honestly say that open-source code is superior. Both models have pros and cons.

[neo75903]

Originally posted by Viruso
Extensions are not so much programs as they are scripts and layouts that use the engine to add functionality to the engine. There are some exceptions. But as a rule they are generally bound by the sandbox the program creates. The sandbox being the browser as opposed to IE where the sandbox is your entire PC.


True, but Ff extansion installs cannot be invoked from a webpage which can be done with ActiveX. Most IE problems comes in this way. And an unattended user only have to click ok to make it work. Worse is that most users dont pay attention what they are clicking on.

Originally posted by Virus
... Remember when snippets of the IE5 code were published on the net? After a couple of days a flaw was found and a hack was made public.


I think this proves Open Source is far more reliable. How long do you think m$ has been hiding that flaw? Or even to publish it in public?
God knows how much of these hidden flaws are in IE and a clever programmer discovers it and use it for what reasons?

IMHO IE flaws woulnd have caused so much attention if it wasnt integrated with Windows that much. The idea a browser can affect your OS is far away in FF scenario.

[M7S]

You can only install extensions from sites that you aproved. Extensions from other sites get blocked.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by virus
Well, FF has local file access. And aren't extensions allowed to write/access config files (and thus access your disk)?

Web pages and plugins on web pages have no local file access other than previously known directories where configs are stored. I discovered this when messing around with the VLC plugin. Creating a web page that uses it on my HD and pointing it to an absolute link to the HD for the video sets off alarms. Mozilla greatly restricts how plugins may interact with the filesystem.

Originally posted by virus
I don't know. Does the auto-updater allow to revert to a previous version of an extension? Anyway there's still a problem: what if the "first sign of trouble" happens simply too late, when damage is already done?

I am quite sure the auto update feature allows for that. And as to it being to late. That is not a good argument. You are hypothesising that something would happen to an opensource project that has already and continues to happen to closed source projects like Microsft's. Which makes it hypothetically a null argument. Save for one fact. If someone sneaks something into IE only Microsoft, the attackers, and your God are likely to know. The attackers and god being the most likely to know with Microsoft only being slightly more likely to know than you the user.

Originally posted by virus
Personally, I disagree - I think this is highly debatable. Security is the only field I can think of where opensource-ness may backfire. Remember when snippets of the IE5 code were published on the net? After a couple of days a flaw was found and a hack was made public. AFAIK nobody found it before the code was published. So, yes, malicious code may be spotted by simply looking at the source... but also security flaws.

Yes but the question arises had the IE5 source been open in the first place would the flaw have existed as long and have made it to as many instalations as it did. No would be the word you are looking for. Something that basic and critical is usually one of the first things that would get taken care of. But Microsoft in their infinate wisdome since they knew no one could see the source that hopefully no one would find it and exploit it. And we all know that hope is the best security measure right? ;) Gee I hope I don't get robbed. Or I hope my house does not catch on fire. There is a difference between open and closed source. People can hide things in closed source better and longer than they can in open source. And with opensource anyone can contribute a full working fix if they so desire. You don't have to wait on one central group who may for whatever reason prioritise your needs as not that pressing.

Originally posted by virus
It has been said on this thread that the code for formatting text in the engine was so complex that nobody could even understand it. What if a really skilled hacker actually goes through it, understands it and finds a flaw? We know that open-source code is usually high-quality... but even a world-class programmer can have a bad day and make a mistake. Having the source available makes things easier for everyone - including hackers. If they're faster (or smarter) than the good guys at discovering potential problems... well, you're cooked.

Not at all. In finding and exploiting a flaw the skilled hacker would in escence point a big sign as to excatly where the flaw is likely to be located. Upon which likely even novice coders could scan and with enough patience find and fix the problem. Even if it takes a professional coder there are alot more professional coders that look at the Mozilla source than look at the IE source.

Originally posted by virus
What I mean is that FF's security must come exclusively from high-quality programming. They don't have the "shield" of secret sourcecode that helps keeping the holes secret.

Secrets are not security. If they were you would not need security to keep secrets.

Originally posted by virus
Of course, you'll say that if they get public, they can be fixed... looks like a chicken-and-egg problem, I know, but this is the only point where I cannot honestly say that open-source code is superior. Both models have pros and cons.

Yes. We are not arguing for the opening of all code. I would argue that there are plenty of aplications etc which would be fine with closed source. Thouse aplications not including OS core functionality or highly relied upon aplications. Such as the OS itself or the browser you rely to access the internet. Personally I don't absolutely need an opensource Mahjong or chess program. But when it comes to my documents and my data opensource and open standards are important to me.

[virus]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Mozilla greatly restricts how plugins may interact with the filesystem.
That's fine. What about malicious code stored in memory? Once you've gained access to the system, you may rely on other OS flaws to keep the fun going. I recognize that it's not FF's fault if the host OS is a piece of crap... but the same "limitation" applies for all software running under Windows - and most of it poses no serious security problems.

That is not a good argument. You are hypothesising that something would happen to an opensource project that has already and continues to happen to closed source projects like Microsft's.
Yes, I'm making this hypotesis. If it's very popular, it can be an easy target for people that want to exploit it. I see no reason for an opensource project to be immune and a closed source one no. All browser out there have bugs and some security flaws; they're discovered continuously. Thinking that FireFox is/will be perfect and invincible is naive at least.

More to the point of my remark: by "too late" I meant to say that reverting to a safer version after the malware has striked won't bring back your lost data.

If someone sneaks something into IE only Microsoft, the attackers, and your God are likely to know.
You're shifting from the main discussion point here. I'm talking about FF extensions written by some random guys over the net. Are we reasonably sure all of them can be stopped timely if they want to do damage?

I trust FF's core, and I'm not trying to say that the main developers will try to "sneak something" into the core. But controlling thousands of extensions that get uploaded/updated daily poses some problems. This has absolutely nothing to do with IE and M$'s faults. Saying "there's no problem because IE is even worse" won't solve security problems in FF (if they exist).

Secrets are not security. If they were you would not need security to keep secrets.

Fine. Why don't you post some of your passwords here? Keeping them secret won't improve your security ;)

More seriously. You can improve security by writing robust code. It is my opinion - but just my opinion - that writing robust code and keeping it secret can make security even higher, because it requires much more skill to find a flaw by reverse engineering than by staring at a C function.

Of course with opensource you've plenty of other advantages, but you're giving away your ability to "make things more difficult" for evildoers. Sure the burglars can enter your home even with a locked door if they're skilled enough... but then why you lock your door every night?

Personally I don't absolutely need an opensource Mahjong or chess program.
Too bad, Crafty is such an amazing opensource chess engine :)