• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mozilla or Opera??**Poll**

opera 7. its free. w/ some ads arnt that bad. its faster then anyting out there. and it has mouse gestres, and you can skin it
 
Voted for Mozilla only because I've become addicted to it's tabbed browsing and the fact that Opera 7.1 just got released. I can see that Opera's got a lot of thought put into it, so I'm going to use it for the next week or two to see if it can compare with Mozilla. It's good to see that html Browser innovation is alive and well even though Microsoft doesn't apparently care to do anything new with IE.
 
Originally posted by: jcuadrado
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: ergeorge
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Mozilla, its almost free and runs on more platforms than Opera.
Click to expand...

Almost free?
Click to expand...

Have you read the license?
Click to expand...

people actually read those?
Click to expand...

Those of us that care do. Most people are ignorant users that do not give a damn about their rights, those are the people that do not take the time to go to the software's site and atleast glance at the license. The BSD license is simple, free, and easy. The GPL is fairly simple, almost free, and easy. Those EULAs some people click ok on without a second thought are crap. The 22 pages of license for CFMX is crap. The 16 page EULA for CFMX updater 2 is crap.

Support simplicity, use free software.
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: jcuadrado
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: ergeorge
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Mozilla, its almost free and runs on more platforms than Opera.
Click to expand...

Almost free?
Click to expand...

Have you read the license?
Click to expand...

people actually read those?
Click to expand...

Those of us that care do. Most people are ignorant users that do not give a damn about their rights, those are the people that do not take the time to go to the software's site and atleast glance at the license. The BSD license is simple, free, and easy. The GPL is fairly simple, almost free, and easy. Those EULAs some people click ok on without a second thought are crap. The 22 pages of license for CFMX is crap. The 16 page EULA for CFMX updater 2 is crap.

Support simplicity, use free software.
Click to expand...

Interesting ... from the free software foundation:
"The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. "

Not sure what the issues are with it.
In any case, I care about licenses, but I'm not a license zealot.
When I've released some of my code, I've used LGPL or BSD, mostly to protect my future rights to use the code.
 
Originally posted by: ergeorge

Interesting ... from the free software foundation:
"The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. "

Not sure what the issues are with it.
Click to expand...

The FSF is basically a bunch of GPL supporters. Its too restrictive. The Netscape open license is similar. Too many restrictions on what you can do and what you cannot do. I have this problem with the GPL also.

In any case, I care about licenses, but I'm not a license zealot.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. I use software that is everything from Free (BSD license) to proprietary (Cold Fusion license). I prefer Free over non-free.

When I've released some of my code, I've used LGPL or BSD, mostly to protect my future rights to use the code.
Click to expand...

I usually go with a BSD license. The GPL is too restrictive, and I dont like someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with additions I make to a piece of software. Its too restrictive.
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: ergeorge

Interesting ... from the free software foundation:
"The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. "

Not sure what the issues are with it.
Click to expand...

The FSF is basically a bunch of GPL supporters. Its too restrictive. The Netscape open license is similar. Too many restrictions on what you can do and what you cannot do. I have this problem with the GPL also.
Click to expand...

So, if you don't buy in to the FSF definition of a "free" license, what's your basis for saying that the MPL is "almost free".
I admit that I haven't read it in any detail. No time, or frankly motivation, to dig into that legal goop.
I'm not a big fan of GPL either.

In any case, I care about licenses, but I'm not a license zealot.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. I use software that is everything from Free (BSD license) to proprietary (Cold Fusion license). I prefer Free over non-free.

When I've released some of my code, I've used LGPL or BSD, mostly to protect my future rights to use the code.
Click to expand...

I usually go with a BSD license. The GPL is too restrictive, and I dont like someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with additions I make to a piece of software. Its too restrictive.
Click to expand...

LGPL isn't to bad IMO.
 
Originally posted by: ergeorge
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: ergeorge

Interesting ... from the free software foundation:
"The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. "

Not sure what the issues are with it.
Click to expand...

The FSF is basically a bunch of GPL supporters. Its too restrictive. The Netscape open license is similar. Too many restrictions on what you can do and what you cannot do. I have this problem with the GPL also.
Click to expand...

So, if you don't buy in to the FSF definition of a "free" license, what's your basis for saying that the MPL is "almost free".
I admit that I haven't read it in any detail. No time, or frankly motivation, to dig into that legal goop.
I'm not a big fan of GPL either.
Click to expand...

How can something be free if there are pages of restrictions?

In any case, I care about licenses, but I'm not a license zealot.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. I use software that is everything from Free (BSD license) to proprietary (Cold Fusion license). I prefer Free over non-free.

When I've released some of my code, I've used LGPL or BSD, mostly to protect my future rights to use the code.
Click to expand...

I usually go with a BSD license. The GPL is too restrictive, and I dont like someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with additions I make to a piece of software. Its too restrictive.
Click to expand...

LGPL isn't to bad IMO.
Click to expand...

Its too complicated. And I believe you still need to release the source when you modify it.
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Mozilla, its almost free and runs on more platforms than Opera.
Click to expand...

That's what I was going to say. You're polling a very Windows-oriented group here, where Opera might be a good alternative to other browsers, but Mozilla performs excellent as well, and on more platforms. Chimera is awesome on OS X. Safari, Apple's browser, is still being developed based on KDE's browser and I personally think it's trash right now compared to Chimera.
 
At home I use Netscape 7 Compact, because all AOL/AIM stuff is removed.
There's also Netscape 7 Streamline.

At work, I use Opera 6. Haven't tried O7 since it's been beta. OK to use now?


What more does Phoenix have that Mozilla doesn't?

Does MultiZilla work on N7?

Is Galeon for Win32?


Others I've heard of:
K-Meleon
Dillo
AvantBrowser (formerly IE Opera)
Crazy Browser
MyIE2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top