Why firefox sucks

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Armitage
Really? So I haven't been doing "more then the basics" for the past 10 years or so? I've never done anything serious on windows.

Then you must not be doing to much with programs then, as most of them only run in Windows. So you're saying any program that runs on Windows is non serious?

I guess SBC and Verizon aren't serious companies to be using MS products then, huh? And you do know what SBC will become if it merges with AT&T, right?

In fact, I'm helping a coworker move a bunch of his stuff off of windows to linux because its simply a better environment for what he's doing - much more stable under the workloads he's doing, better remote access, easier to script, etc. Actually, once he got "beyond the basics" is when windows didn't cut it anymore.

He must not have many programs then. Because anyone knows, Linux doesn't run many of them.

So if he specializes into something else, that's fine. But that doesn't make *nix the "better platform".

Each has it's pros and cons, and to compare *nix to be the best platform, and refuse to see what the NEAR future can bring, is simple blindness of brand loyality.

I run Windows on my desktop, RHE on my server (only because FreeBSD doesn't work well with CPanel). It's no big deal. But why is it with you? Not enough converts??

Windows isn't a serious player for the stuff I'm doing - cluster computing, etc.

Helm, took that away, Armitage. In fact, it's the easiest way (who would want to be a slave for a computer in the first place? Not even sysadmins) to cluster computers. And Helm works on what OS again??

Excuse me? Unix was the established player when windows was just a new toy.

Yes, and it wasn't useful for mainline computing. PCs came along and end users needed a simplier (and cheaper) way to do their business.

Heck, even my 286 had MS-DOS and everything back them was IBM compatible (it's still operational. Have pics if you want to see a 1988 computer with 2k of memory and MS-DOS that still works - no Y2K scare there - even managed to cram Wordperfect 6.0 on it).

Thank you for repeating that.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Er, wrong. NS went down the tubes because it sucked monkey balls compared to IE 4 in every single way. NS wanted to do things their way, and it turned out to be convoluted and buggy, taking years to rewrite from scratch after they open-sourced it. NS 3 had it over IE. NS 4 was crap. It had all the problems and then some of current IE when it came to displaying pages with the current standards, and wasn't stable worth a damn.

dude i think you have your versions mixed up. IE 3 was the awesome browser, IE 4 was the piece of crap with active desktop and 'channels'. NS 6 was the bad browser.

No. I never even tried NS 6, and IE 4 had no active desktop ties, because my OS didn't have active desktop yet (actually, did NT4 ever get active desktop?)

NS 6 was Mozilla. NS 5 never existed.

I never said anything about a 5. I gave up on NS4, and didn't try NS again until 7.2, as my mom's bank website says she needs IE or Netscape (when using FF).

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
So your argument is moot. They both have the same problem, so why bring it up?

To show that you can admit so.

I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.

I bet those Unix engineers in 1971 would've loved to have known the future, as the buggy whip makers 100 years ago.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Er, wrong. NS went down the tubes because it sucked monkey balls compared to IE 4 in every single way. NS wanted to do things their way, and it turned out to be convoluted and buggy, taking years to rewrite from scratch after they open-sourced it. NS 3 had it over IE. NS 4 was crap. It had all the problems and then some of current IE when it came to displaying pages with the current standards, and wasn't stable worth a damn.

dude i think you have your versions mixed up. IE 3 was the awesome browser, IE 4 was the piece of crap with active desktop and 'channels'. NS 6 was the bad browser.

No. I never even tried NS 6, and IE 4 had no active desktop ties, because my OS didn't have active desktop yet (actually, did NT4 ever get active desktop?)

NS 6 was Mozilla. NS 5 never existed.

I never said anything about a 5. I gave up on NS4, and didn't try NS again until 7.2, as my mom's bank website says she needs IE or Netscape (when using FF).

I know you didn't say anything about it, I just felt like throwing that in. I started using netscape after I ditched windows. I was an IE guy before that.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.

I bet those Unix engineers in 1971 would've loved to have known the future, as the buggy whip makers 100 years ago.

I don't know how much it would have changed. A few parts of the implimentation here, a couple things in C there. Whatever. The fact that unix-like systems are still around and doing WELL just goes to show you how good of a design it was. It has evolved (and in some cases revolted). It's been copied, and extended, but fundamentally it's the same.

Can't say the same for Windows.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You do not have the power in a graphical interface that you do on the CLI.
You can still screw everything up (see: any of the tech forums here).

1. Yet.
2. Yes, but that's a tail chasing argument, because the same plagues CLI users who type the wrong switch (or worse d/l the wrong tar ball, and install a wrong or broken patch).

Have to think beyond the here and now, and in 10 years. There will be a revolution in the server sector to make system administration as easy as desktop computing has become. It takes an organization (a company most often) with the resources to do so. Either that'll come by another innovator, MS or Apple. Mostly likely MS, as it's expected to do it. It's not if MS will break into the server market wholesale, it's just when (same goes with Apple).

*nix is living the 1971 dream at the moment. 1981, and 1996, is coming up.

As easy as desktop computing> Windows is a nightmare compared to a decent Linux distro, which allows you to do anything you want in the CLI, but also has the option of using GUI front ends. There will be no revolution. It's here. Now. Some people will make GUI tools, but the command-line will merely be hidden, not done away with. The way it has been working since the 70s is good, and merely needs a few layers added for ease of use of simple options. Try working with IIS, MS Proxy, or Exchange, and then Apache. If you just want to add a domain, the GUI is no sweat. When you want to tweak things and troubleshoot, which grandma will still ned someone else to do, it takes far more time and effort than bringing up Konsole, Xterm, etc., and doing it--which can be done right beside the GUI tools and testing utilities.

System administration will not go away. There are just too many variables and configurations. its scope will narrow, and already has in recent years, but it won't go away as long as there are different things you can set up and do, and different things a company wants to set up and do.

Cerb, the way you admin will change a lot when grandma will be doing your tasks with a GUI and a simple step-by-step guide. It will have to be a GUI, as history shows it's the best interface the general public accepts. You know about the Dell servers that have DRAC cards? Do you know how popular they are to sysadmins? Yeah, it's not just because it's a one stop shop of the essentials to run a server, it's because a sysadmin can do his business (even remotely), and get back to other business quickly.

KISS principle is more than a string command.

You think grandma wants to worry about what is in the DMZ, and what can connect outside, to the LAN, what servers have priority over others, or any other such crap? No, she will just want it to work, work properly, and continue working properly. Current web-based and GUI admin tools aren't special, or even intuitive. They exist to do very simple tasks. There is no way to change that, and make it reasonably easy to use at the same time.

KISS only works when the setup is simple. In most business networks, it won't be. A CLI is not a bad interface. A GUI is not a bad interface. It depends on what you need to do. If the answer is, "Anything, and quickly," you need a CLI. If the answer is, "you know, the basic stuff," you can use a GUI fine. Admin work is very much about keeping problems from occuring. Sure, you'll make mistakes, and it isn't the simplest way to do things. But with a system made for it (OS X, Linux, *BSD), you can quickly and easily to anything with a few hundred keystrokes. That power hasn't gone away yet, and won't be going away any time soon.

XML will not make conpliance any better. MS has already shown they have no problems making custom sub-formats, regardless of any need. What will make it better is W3C stepping up and saying things should be done certain ways, so that different browsers will at least render things close enough that nobody will care.

Terumo, you seem to think that the GUI getting better will make the command line a thing of the past. Fortunately, you're wrong. Better GUI tools will make the GUI more useful, the command line less necessary, and make it easier to teach n00bs. However, it won't put command lines out of use by any stretch of the imagination. Look at OS X. The best GUI around has important things available via command line interface--because you should use the best tool for the job, not the one that looks prettiest.

Need I point out the real argument about IE, folks? It's not so much about IE, as who makes it (and the threat of legacy jobs being replaced).

Gotcha!

No different than Evolution/Creation threads. Just another King to try to kick down!

 

[Cerb]

How can you separate the creator from the created work? MS doesn't want to work to make IE support the full set of standards, nor be secure, because it nets them no money. Therefore, any argument about IE, is about MS. I have not attempted to say any differently.

Care to reply to my points?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.

I bet those Unix engineers in 1971 would've loved to have known the future, as the buggy whip makers 100 years ago.

I don't know how much it would have changed. A few parts of the implimentation here, a couple things in C there. Whatever. The fact that unix-like systems are still around and doing WELL just goes to show you how good of a design it was. It has evolved (and in some cases revolted). It's been copied, and extended, but fundamentally it's the same.

Can't say the same for Windows.

Good design was Amiga's and Mac's downfall, remember? In the end, what survives is what's popular to the masses who can USE it (and the company remains solvent). That's the point you're refusing to admit. Easier to complain than to want to see the future.

The problem with Open Source is it's very nature. A zillion fingers in the pie with little organization. It's fine for purists, but it hardly "catches on" when people don't like beta testing type products messing up their computer, and it takes a company like Red Hat to make Linux popular and easy enough to install.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.

I bet those Unix engineers in 1971 would've loved to have known the future, as the buggy whip makers 100 years ago.

I don't know how much it would have changed. A few parts of the implimentation here, a couple things in C there. Whatever. The fact that unix-like systems are still around and doing WELL just goes to show you how good of a design it was. It has evolved (and in some cases revolted). It's been copied, and extended, but fundamentally it's the same.

Can't say the same for Windows.

Good design was Amiga's and Mac's downfall, remember? In the end, what survives is what's popular to the masses who can USE it (and the company remains solvent). That's the point you're refusing to admit. Easier to complain than to want to see the future.

The problem with Open Source is it's very nature. A zillion fingers in the pie with little organization. It's fine for purists, but it hardly "catches on" when people don't like beta testing type products messing up their computer, and it takes a company like Red Hat to make Linux popular and easy enough to install.

Why is its nature a problem? There are people out of those zillions who make it better for normal users. You can't tell me Mepis or Knoppix are hard to install or use. And they are 100% Free.
RH and Suse give you good management design. Xandros gives you transparent use side-by-side with Windows. How is this a problem? With this, FOSS gives us choice and quality. Those zillions in the pie give us good tools that do good work. Those companies out to make money add value to those tools by making packages out of them that anyone can use applications on with minimal learning.

For example, there's Mandrake Multinetwork Firewall. All free stuff. Every last piece, save the mandrake logo, is Free. Big-F free. So why pay $400 or so for it? Because you can install it as one piece and use it easily, with some support from Mandrake as an option. However, such great tools wouldn't be there without many people working on them, and in most cases, working on them because they think it needs doing. The balance (which is social and economic) between Free and pay gives everyone a wonderful set of choices. Free for the techies, and pay for the company. It is also good for workers, because you can move from Windows to Linux to BSD and have only a minor learning curve, as 90% of apps and tools can often transfer over.

Only Stallman himself would disagree with the massive corporate involvement in FOSS, and only a corporate goon would consider the millions of people working on projects a liability.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Cerb
How can you separate the creator from the created work? MS doesn't want to work to make IE support the full set of standards, nor be secure, because it nets them no money. Therefore, any argument about IE, is about MS. I have not attempted to say any differently.

Care to reply to my points?

It doesn't help when folks are brainwashed to view MS as M$. As soon as I see that, I know they'll be a slam against Microsoft in some way. The bias is dripping.

MS works to their design, their engineering, and their future. The end users have a choice to seek other products, but MS doesn't have to make every tweak, every new feature, and confine itself to one standard if it can expand on functionality. No programmer would want their design to be dictated by a lynch mob, anyway -- even open source programmers.

Being the King rivals will attack it. Be it exploitations, or whatever. That DOES NOT mean it's anymore less buggy or less of a product, especially when there's a 1,000,000 to 10,000 ratio of users reporting them. MS products look like they're more buggy, because more users USE IT, and will report more bugs with many more programs. It is rare that someone will have MS itself on their computers. MS isn't responsible for third party software/drivers messing up it's OS. It can and does HELP those developers to resolve issues, but they can also chose not too, if and when it debases it's product from it's spec. That's plain common sense.

MS can't be everything. Sun learned about that with the hype with Java (remember it was going to revolutionize the world??). MS can produce what it can, with it's goals and with it's resources. *nix is open source and folks can tweak it all they want, but they too face the same problem MS faces with product design and repair -- more code in, more chances of a bug. Linux of 1998 is no more streamlined as Windows 3.11 for workgroups is to Windows XP. And patching Linux isn't an excuse to that very elemental problem in coding every program faces -- BLOAT.

So if you want your tabbed browsing and your other trinkets, you're asking for the same problem every program will face -- bigger programs with more bugs.

And since I can't tell what MS has in store in the future, I won't comment on their future browser (which may introduce new features to whoo and wow end users). Tabbed browsing is one that Firefox users rally around, but I know, if MS had a feature to make browsing easier the same fanfare wouldn't be there. Because of what? It's the King-of-the-Hill and no matter how perfect they can make a product, some David wants to take down Goliath.

End of Story.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: UnixFreak
Here is an article I wrote about why firefox sucks. I don't want to post all the text in here, so here's the link

Why firefox sucks


Looking back, I should title it "why firefox users suck" but oh well. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong about this?

Look, you may be a hard-core computer nerd who thinks everyone who switched to Firefox did so out of some need to support an internet standard so dear to hard-core nerds everywhere or to stand up against some random "evil empire." Quite frankly many people use Firefox (yes, even computer illiterates) because it offers a user interface they prefer. I know of quite a few people who think a hard drive is the big upright thing you connect to your monitor who have switched to Firefox. I switched my parents to Firefox and guess what? They don't have crazy amounts of spyware on their machine when I visit them these anymore. They are happy with how it operates and they have no complaints. Give it a rest, I admit I'm a nerd too but I don't care what browser people use and I don't come to conclusions about people (ie. "Firefox users suck") based on what browser they use.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.

I bet those Unix engineers in 1971 would've loved to have known the future, as the buggy whip makers 100 years ago.

I don't know how much it would have changed. A few parts of the implimentation here, a couple things in C there. Whatever. The fact that unix-like systems are still around and doing WELL just goes to show you how good of a design it was. It has evolved (and in some cases revolted). It's been copied, and extended, but fundamentally it's the same.

Can't say the same for Windows.

Good design was Amiga's and Mac's downfall, remember? In the end, what survives is what's popular to the masses who can USE it (and the company remains solvent). That's the point you're refusing to admit. Easier to complain than to want to see the future.

I understand your point, but in the software world it doesn't hold as true. Thanks to F/OSS the people that enjoy *nix will always have *nix. Whether it remains pertinent is up to the future.

The problem with Open Source is it's very nature. A zillion fingers in the pie with little organization. It's fine for purists, but it hardly "catches on" when people don't like beta testing type products messing up their computer, and it takes a company like Red Hat to make Linux popular and easy enough to install.

Look at the BSDs, they are organized much better in these regards. Hell, OpenBSD has the easiest installer EVER.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Cerb
How can you separate the creator from the created work? MS doesn't want to work to make IE support the full set of standards, nor be secure, because it nets them no money. Therefore, any argument about IE, is about MS. I have not attempted to say any differently.

Care to reply to my points?

It doesn't help when folks are brainwashed to view MS as M$. As soon as I see that, I know they'll be a slam against Microsoft in some way. The bias is dripping.

MS works to their design, their engineering, and their future. The end users have a choice to seek other products, but MS doesn't have to make every tweak, every new feature, and confine itself to one standard if it can expand on functionality. No programmer would want their design to be dictated by a lynch mob, anyway -- even open source programmers.

Being the King rivals will attack it. Be it exploitations, or whatever. That DOES NOT mean it's anymore less buggy or less of a product, especially when there's a 1,000,000 to 10,000 ratio of users reporting them. MS products look like they're more buggy, because more users USE IT, and will report more bugs with many more programs. It is rare that someone will have MS itself on their computers. MS isn't responsible for third party software/drivers messing up it's OS. It can and does HELP those developers to resolve issues, but they can also chose not too, if and when it debases it's product from it's spec. That's plain common sense.

MS can't be everything. Sun learned about that with the hype with Java (remember it was going to revolutionize the world??). MS can produce what it can, with it's goals and with it's resources. *nix is open source and folks can tweak it all they want, but they too face the same problem MS faces with product design and repair -- more code in, more chances of a bug. Linux of 1998 is no more streamlined as Windows 3.11 for workgroups is to Windows XP. And patching Linux isn't an excuse to that very elemental problem in coding every program faces -- BLOAT.

So if you want your tabbed browsing and your other trinkets, you're asking for the same problem every program will face -- bigger programs with more bugs.

And since I can't tell what MS has in store in the future, I won't comment on their future browser (which may introduce new features to whoo and wow end users). Tabbed browsing is one that Firefox users rally around, but I know, if MS had a feature to make browsing easier the same fanfare wouldn't be there. Because of what? It's the King-of-the-Hill and no matter how perfect they can make a product, some David wants to take down Goliath.

End of Story.

.
Availability issues: totally skipped.
Standards: basically skipped, as you diverted the issue. I never said anything about being confined to standards. However, they should support the open standards in addition to what they make. Instead, they have their own set of rules, undocumented, which are at variance with the open standards, and nothing but apathy makes it that way.
Power vs. intuition: totally skipped.
Steamlining vs dissappearing: totally skipped.
Value-added FOSS vs. closed source: totally skipped.
Bloat: totally separate argument from anything myself or n0cmonkey brought up, AKA red herring. There is bloat in Windows, but that has little to do with the arguments, as I doubt MS cares about being used for DNS servers and other things where it really might matter. Redhat, too, for that matter.
Bugs vs. users: irrelavent and not true (do a little research), as has been dealt with over and over and over.

 

[Terumo]

Interesting this thread was moved from Offtopic to here. lololol

<Now got to find a bottle of Motrin!!>

BTW, Armitage, read this....

http://www.webhostautomation.c.../helm/multiserver.aspx

Although Helm is geared to the web host market, it does clustering servers very, very well. It also streamlines admin chores to do so. This is but one source that will help Windows Server get a toehold into the server market. Others will follow as MS fully branches into the server market (it like IBM, has geared it's services to large corporations, first. When MS finally comes to the mom and pop ops with the dedication of it's desktop OS, then the server market will be transformed).

It's not if, it's just only when.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Armitage
Really? So I haven't been doing "more then the basics" for the past 10 years or so? I've never done anything serious on windows.

Then you must not be doing to much with programs then, as most of them only run in Windows. So you're saying any program that runs on Windows is non serious?

Nope, your the one making the broad generalizations, not I. You said that "if a person has to do more than the basics they have to use Windows." Which is completely absurd. I just gave a simple, bounded counter example - that for most of my proffesional career, I have not done anything significant on the windows platform. There is serious work done on windows, but to say you have to use windows to do anything "more then the basics" is just riduculus. In my experience, in my field, the real work gets done on unix - mostly SGI, but now moving more towards Linux & clusters. Windows is used for word processing.

I guess SBC and Verizon aren't serious companies to be using MS products then, huh? And you do know what SBC will become if it merges with AT&T, right?

Again, I never said windows isn't used for serious computing. Just that I don't use it for that.

In fact, I'm helping a coworker move a bunch of his stuff off of windows to linux because its simply a better environment for what he's doing - much more stable under the workloads he's doing, better remote access, easier to script, etc. Actually, once he got "beyond the basics" is when windows didn't cut it anymore.

He must not have many programs then. Because anyone knows, Linux doesn't run many of them.

What does quantity of programs have to do with anything? I don't care how many programs run on Linux - just that the ones I need do. And they do. FWIW, almost everything we do is custom in-house code, so availability of external apps isn't an issue.

So if he specializes into something else, that's fine. But that doesn't make *nix the "better platform".

Each has it's pros and cons, and to compare *nix to be the best platform, and refuse to see what the NEAR future can bring, is simple blindness of brad loyality.

I switched to unix because windows didn't get the job done 10 years ago. It's still not getting it done for this guy that I'm helping. For me, it is the better platform.

I run Windows on my desktop, RHE on my server (only because FreeBSD doesn't work well with CPanel). It's no big deal. But why is it with you? Not enough converts??

I'm not evangelizing here - I don't give a damn what you use. I just take issue with your statement that anything beyond the basics must be done on Windows.

Windows isn't a serious player for the stuff I'm doing - cluster computing, etc.

Helm, took that away, Armitage. In fact, it's the easiest way (who would want to be a slave for a computer in the first place? Not even sysadmins) to cluster computers. And Helm works on what OS again??

Never heard of it - and I follow cluster computing fairly closely.
Where does it show up on Top500?

Excuse me? Unix was the established player when windows was just a new toy.

Yes, and it wasn't useful for mainline computing. PCs came along and end users needed a simplier (and cheaper) way to do their business.

So what is "mainline" computing? Unix existed for decades before windows appeared. I guess they were just big useless space heaters.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Interesting this thread was moved from Offtopic to here. lololol

<Now got to find a bottle of Motrin!!>

BTW, Armitage, read this....

http://www.webhostautomation.c.../helm/multiserver.aspx

Although Helm is geared to the web host market, it does clustering servers very, very well. It also streamlines admin chores to do so. This is but one source that will help Windows Server get a toehold into the server market. Others will follow as MS fully branches into the server market (it like IBM, has geared it's services to large corporations, first. When MS finally comes to the mom and pop ops with the dedication of it's desktop OS, then the server market will be transformed).

It's not if, it's just only when.

Ah - ic. Server management. Not quite the same thing as HPC clusters.

 

[Terumo]

If you're refering to this....

http://www.hp.com/techservers/...rs/linux_clusters.html

It's really not much different than the prior IBM formula of mainframes. And most mainframes went the way of the dodo.

How you'd cluster proprietary servers is much different than building 100 dual xeons and using them and their resources to make a cheaper alternative. Ask any 3D/CGI shop what they do -- they're not buying SGI supercomputers, they're buying enough parts to build 100+ computers to build a rendering farm. Throw in Linux, and they got a cheap way to do an otherwise very expensive feat. That's how the Hollywood studios are doing it, and you know how large their budgets are.

OS is the cheap part in computing, hardware is what's expensive. Do away with the expense of not only the hardware and service contracts (and dedicated IT departments), then you see how PCs destroyed the mainframe market.

A plucky new OS on a much cheaper computer can do that.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Er, wrong. NS went down the tubes because it sucked monkey balls compared to IE 4 in every single way. NS wanted to do things their way, and it turned out to be convoluted and buggy, taking years to rewrite from scratch after they open-sourced it. NS 3 had it over IE. NS 4 was crap. It had all the problems and then some of current IE when it came to displaying pages with the current standards, and wasn't stable worth a damn.

dude i think you have your versions mixed up. IE 3 was the awesome browser, IE 4 was the piece of crap with active desktop and 'channels'. NS 6 was the bad browser.

Yeah, I never had any big problems with NS4, other than occasional crashes, less so than I get now with IE6 on my NT machine at work. NS6 was the bad one (very slow). I tried it and went back to 4.

Originally posted by: CerbI never said anything about a 5. I gave up on NS4, and didn't try NS again until 7.2, as my mom's bank website says she needs IE or Netscape (when using FF).

Netscape is Mozilla.


BTW, seen this? Teen is co-creator of Firefox browser

 

[Insomniak]

In before lock?

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Anubis
if you say so

Does she have hair growing out of her butt, or is she farting fire? I can't tell.

Either way, ridiculous picture.

 

[LoserSlayer]

Werll one reason FIrefox hasn't had a few things perfect is because it was been around for years like IE. You;re probably using Internet Explorer VERSION 6. They've had time over the years to find the problems and fix them. Also, one of your centering examples if messed up. I clicked on the link and it was centered correctly. And if that even matters, unless you are too lazy to look a centimeter the left or right. And I don't get craploads of spam and spyware with FF like I did with IE. Right now the only problem if really cared about with FF is that some sites require it. Whoopdie-do. I can just copy and paste the link, depending on size, into IE and do what I need to do. That's the only reason IE is still on my computer. Sceond, the websites that don't support FF just haven't done anything about it.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: CerbI never said anything about a 5. I gave up on NS4, and didn't try NS again until 7.2, as my mom's bank website says she needs IE or Netscape (when using FF).

Netscape is Mozilla.

BTW, seen this? Teen is co-creator of Firefox browser

Emphasis added. My first response would have been to use FF, but she was. Now if AOL would just switch from IE for its primary browser...

And no, not that specific article.

 

[Olafva]

Firefox is taking off for many reasons that are sound that you've touched on where IE is deficient:

Security (Homeland seciruty advises AGAINST using IE
Speed: faster than IE, similar to Opera, but slower than Safari (easy to measure and it's such a
difference that IE seems like a dog once you've tried Safari

You asked for opinions, so here's how I'd stack them up on a 1-10 scale (10 best):

Safari: 9
Firefox: 7
Opera: 5
IE: 3

I see Safari and Firefox growing and many switching away from IE

 

[Sunner]

Terumo, you might not be aware, but mainframes have actually quite the upswing lately.
There are places where clusters of cheap PC's can never replace one big mainfram or UNIX big iron.

Also, what do you mean "Most programs" don't run under Linux?
I run Debian on my workstation, exactly because it has the programs I need, I guess I could run Cygwin on my Windows box, but now I mostly use it for mail reading and as an mp3 player.
Where I work, we run our entire environment on Linux boxes(well actually we have a few Solaris boxes as well), we're not missing any software.

You're looking at all of this from your perspective, without thinking about others, and their needs/preferences, that just won't work.

 

[dev0lution]

Not a zealot, but IE has serious exploit flaws that even if you patch regularly you're still lagging 2-3 weeks behind exploit alerts.

What's a pop up...oh...right, what I get at work when I'm forced to use IE

Extensions and themes + tabbed browsing and simplicity = no more IE, unless by some horrible disaster I'm forced to download something from MS.

Can't say anything about Opera, though from the comments, I'm glad Firefox is a bit more basic. I'll stick to the few extensions like sage that I actually want.

Unix - I think there's a enough posts about your code being a bit off. But with your handle who needs a browser. Get back to your terminal! ;-)