Gecko May Replace IE In AOL/CompuServe 226
ShaunC writes: "According to this C|Net article, pieces of Gecko have been spotted in a beta version of the next CompuServe client, and AOL has confirmed that Gecko is being tested as CompuServe's default browser. AOL 7.0 is shipping with IE, but perhaps future versions will widen the gap between AOL and Microsoft. (I'm glad we won't be seeing AOL-TW-MS-NBC.)"
IE compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Users will yell if something that worked with IE don't work any more.
However, there will be a lot of bug reports, and those will make Mozilla better.
Re:IE compatibility (Score:1)
Or what's the connection between the two? Does Mozilla (the browser, that is) use Gecko?
nb
Re:IE compatibility (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IE compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IE compatibility (Score:1)
Yes, and in that case, the user should indeed loudly complaint. To the webmaster of that s(h)ite!
Re:IE compatibility (Score:2)
Actually - in addition, Mozilla needs to complain loudly - I'm tired of going to a new site and having Mozilla just lock up because of some whacked out IE only crap. Mozilla needs to be able to handle stuff like this, recover AND should pop up some type of window informing the user that this site uses non compliant Javascript, etc and to complain to the webmaster or whatever. But freezing isn't the answer!
I think Mozilla will help move some websites towards standards comliancy, though at the expense of some users who will refuse to use it 'cause it works on IE!' Its a tough battle and there are arguments for both sides (maybe Mozilla should handle whatever screwy stuff it is but also pop up a window or use a taskbar icon to indicate a BAD site - non compliant whatever - wnough users bug the webmaster about it - maybe they'll fix it instead of telling users 'Use IE and don't bug me"
I can dream can't I? :)
Re:IE compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
To deal with this, Gecko has a wonderful feature - 'quirks' mode. When handling a web page that doesn't have a strict DTD declaration, Gecko emulates the rendering bugs of IE (especially those with spacing and the CSS box model). So a page that is not standards compliant but works with IE will probably look OK in Gecko too.
Re:IE compatibility (Score:2)
Quirks mode emulates the bugs of previous versions of Netscape, not IE.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
B8 00 4C CD 21 (Score:2)
b8 = load AX
00 4c with 004c
cd 21 = int 21
4c on 21 was exit program, right ? (its been a long time ago
Re:IE compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
When AOL moves 20 million clueless idiots from MSIE to Gecko, Web designers will fix the problems very quickly, making the Web a better place for all of us.
Re:IE compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IE compatibility (Score:2)
Right on AOL!
IE 6 vs others (Score:1, Troll)
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2, Interesting)
In what respect? I use Mozilla exclusively on Windows and Galeon on Linux and I see no advantage that IE6 has over Mozilla.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2)
Side note - I hate mozilla's security method of its random directory names. Anyone know how to turn that crap off? I want to use 1 profile in 1 directory, like netscape, ie, opera, links....
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of that, it's lighter, has mouse gestures and a much better interface (once you get used to it). I'd say, try it.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2)
The Luddite view ... (Score:5, Informative)
What do you actually need in a browser aside from fast HTML rendering (with CSS), a consistent Javascript model (so you can do stuff without having to go back to the server) and an architecture which supports common plugins (Flash, SVG). OK, you can make an argument for Java Applets if something more complicated needs to be done on the machine, but downloading and running some other muppets native executable code (ActiveX) and running it with my priveledges - no way. I can do enough damage with my own code. If it's complicated, why isn't it running on the server? What ever happened to thin clients?
Stop the madness.
PS I appreciate the irony that I'm posting using IE 6, but I'm at work and I'm testing whether it offers anything over our standard IE 5.01. It doesn't -
Re:The Luddite view ... (Score:1)
Hey, why so paranoid? Do a "View Source" (or whatever the equivalent is on IE6) on the comment page. Do you see any mention of User-Agent's there? No, it's mentioned nowhere... No tricky <!--Postedwith:blabla--> comments.
So nobody's going to call you on your usage of IE. And those people who do have access to the log files (Cowboy Neal et al.) have better things to do with their time than to make fun of people who disparage the browser they are using....
Re:The Luddite view ... (Score:2)
Interesting. ActiveX *IS* that common architecture which supports common plugins. If you didn't know, ActiveX is how Flash, Shockwave and soon Sun's Java VM for IE (not the current plugin - the new one that they are working on that will directly work with applet tags) and all other plugins work on IE.
Why isn't it running on the server? Because stuff like Flash would be kinda slow if it ran on the server..
Re:The Luddite view ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and yes, I do appreciate that, for IE, COM is used for plugins. Looking at IE, how else would you do it? "Standard plugins" though are a world away from any bit of executable code which someone might feel like running on your machine - and don't give me crap about "certificates" making it all OK.
Done arguing now.
Re:The Luddite view ... (Score:2)
Slashdot is probably the single worst place to browse looking for IE compatibility issues. Second only to Netscape.com I'm sure. I seriously doubt they utilize any of the IE quirks, thereby breaking all of the other browsers that aren't broken in the same way.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides Mozilla does not leak my personal information, it does not have cryptic option names designed to fool me, it does not keep sending me to MSN, it does not accept activeX controls, it does not execute viruses automatically, and best of all it allows me to turn off popups on page load.
Mozilla is the best browser on the market and it's not even version one yet. This is because it focuses on me. It wants to help me have a better web browsing experience. IE wants to deliver me to advertisers. That's a significant difference.
The number one reason AOL should go with mozilla (or gecko) is because MS is planning to implement smart tags and has already implemented 404 redirects. The last thing AOL wants is for their customers to be redirected to MS sites anytime they click on anything and besides why give aid and comfort to your enemy.
By switching to mozilla AOL will also discourage people from building IE only sites and that will be a good thing for all of us.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Christopher
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Agreed. With 0.9.5, Mozilla has become more than good enough for regular use. I haven't had to open IE even once, in the week since I downloaded Moz 0.9.5.
In fact, I've had the same Mozilla window open for right at a week now, and haven't had the first problem. Try keeping the same IE window open ( and used regularly ) for a week.
Mozilla 0.9.5 is just as fast as IE 5.5, on my K6/2-266 machine, and the tabbed interface just kicks a$$.
In short, with the 0.9.5 release, Mozilla IS now the best browser available, IMO.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1, Informative)
I use mozilla. It rocks. It has tabs, it has mouse gestures, it's fast and it's really stable. I can theme it any way I want. I of course have IE installed but I never fire it up unless I visit one or two percent of the sites that insist on it.
Comparing speed between mozilla and ie6 isnt even close. IE6 will win most rendering contests almost every time. IE6 is also substantially more stable than ie5.x (I think I recall only one crash in the 4 months I've been running it : Netscape 4.76 used to crash four to five times a day in debian...)
Besides Mozilla does not leak my personal information, it does not have cryptic option names designed to fool me, it does not keep sending me to MSN, it does not accept activeX controls, it does not execute viruses automatically, and best of all it allows me to turn off popups on page load.
Going back to my previous statement, all of these things can be fixed, except the pop-ups. From the top menu, choose tools, and then internet options. Under the security and privacy tabs, set who YOU want to be able to get your information. Dont take the default, it's as simple as that. Tell IE6 NOT to run activex, or to ask you first. Tell it not to execute ANY binary files, period. Tell it not to send you to msn, set your homepage to
The only problem that i see with msn, that i dont like, is the 404 redirect. I'm looking into a way to change this. Other than that, I couldnt be happier with ie6.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1)
Comparing speed between Mozilla and Netscape 4.76 isn't even close either. Mozilla will win most rendering contests almost every time. Mozilla is also substantially more stable than Netscape 4.76.
Etc, etc...
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1)
On the other hand I use Opera with it now, and it seems to be the "Right Tool for the Job". Just too bad I cannot import my certificates from Netscape, so I have to fall back to Netscape when doing some online banking.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:4, Informative)
That said, I think it's clear that I use these browsers more than just once a week or so. All of them get heavy use from me so I can g et a lot of comparison time. My machine is a K6/2 450 running Win ME (I do lots of multimedia editing, hence ME is better for me than 98se)
Here's what I've found from my observations:
IE: SLOW AS MOLASAS (SP?). NS4 kicks it's ass hands down.IE is slow to render windows, slow to render HTML when a window has been rendered, and (most anoyingly) is slow to respond to UI. I have a habit when I am searching for something with google to do the following: Search google, open page in new window, hit ctrl+f and start typing what it was I was looking for so I can find WHERE the relavant thing is on the page. I consistantly type faster than IE can keep up. Ler's say I'm looking for "widget". I hit ctrl+f and then type w-i-d-g-e-t [ENTER]. I look up... only to see the "et" in the word "let" highlighted. The search window appears so slow that if I don't remember to wait for it (only about a second, but still...) then the leading characters get truncated. Consistantly.
NS4: Not bad... until I got a broadband connection. NS4 consistantly blew away, IE, NS6 and Mozilla. (Except in HTML rendering speed for Mozilla). It's biggest advantage was the fact that it's windows would render instantly on even the slowest system. The only problem was that once I got broadband and it started downloading larg web pages FAST, it would freeze... pause really before rendering the HTML. Some pages rendered faster when I was on 56K. I think NS4 just has a problem with parsing large HTML files rapidly. If it gets them spoon fed, it renders them as fast as it can, but if it gets a page of HTML dumped on it, it gags and chokes and generaly has a hard time. That's when I started using IE a little more than I had to...
Mozilla: The first thing I noticed when I first downloaded Mozilla (ditto for NS6) was WOW, these Windows render slow as hell! I could draw the windows with an etch-a-sketch faster than this! Then the next thing I noticed, blew me away. HTML rendering was blisteringly fast. I had read about how one of the goals of the Mozilla project was to create a wonderfuly standards compliant browser, so I ran some informal tests against old and new pages I had saved localy on my machine. Some were standards compliant and others were "real world" compliant. Amazing... the standards complient pages rendered just as they should! They were pages which I hade taken down from my sites (and replaced with non standards complient ones) because either NS4 or IE didn't render them correctly. Mozilla rendered both NS4 and IE's buggy pages right. It even rendered the nonstandard pages the way I wanted them to look! IT took me a bit of digging to figure out why... Mozilla includes a "buggy" mode that treats pages without a DTD declaration as non standards complient. That way IE's known bugs that were designed around, show up fine! Wonderful! Since then, I've downloaded every Mozilla milestone and now, at
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure which issue you're talking about here, so I'll address both :)
If IE gets a page with an error code that's below a certain size, it substitutes it's own page. Instructions on how to disable it with a registry setting here [mydesktophelp.com] (or it may be a preference these days..)
There's definitely a preference for this. Uncheck something along the lines of "Search from the address bar" in the advanced settings.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2, Interesting)
I'v been cold called several times by telemarketers offering to see me links to my website when someone types somthing into the IE6 address bar that isn't a valid domain name. They want the equivalent of aprox USD150 setup fee and USD150 per phrase. I consider this to be another example of abuse of thier monopoly. They are attempting to use their control of most peoples browser to gain an unfair advantage over existing search engines and to some extent bypass the domain name system itself.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:3, Insightful)
On the Mac (a more level ground for comparison) I've always found Netscape just as stable as IE. On Linux, just as unstable as any other browser.
Hmmm... I thought your "previous statement" was that we shouldn't try to fix it at all?(Which anyway is a lost cause, from what I hear. IE = "All your prefs are belong to us!")
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, the nerve. Imagine sitting down to use a piece of software and actually expecting it to work. Perfectly, no less! And if it doesn't, I have the unmitigated gall, the chutzpah, the social insensitivity to attempt to make it work. I am truly ashamed of myself.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2)
I generally use Mozilla, IE is pretty buggy (stable, but buggy, e.g. sometimes the drop-down menus just don't work unless you alt+tab and alt+tab back again, or clicking 'back' results in form data being lost, or when you click "refresh" and it totally ignores your request to refresh etc), but there is one reason I often go back to IE: the "save as" feature that will save the page along with all inlined images etc, converting the addresses to local addresses. If Mozilla had that, I would probably ditch IE totally. It would probably be fairly easy to add too, I've even considered getting the source code and having a go at adding it myself.
Mozilla is the best browser on the market and it's not even version one yet
Personally, I think they should just call it "Mozilla 5" or "Mozilla 6" when they hit "version 1" status. Purely for "marketing" reasons -> Mozilla 1.0 will be approximately equivalent to at least IE 5. But naming it "version 1" when IE is at "version 6" will look bad in the eyes of the sheeple.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you mean? Have you actually tried any other browser for Windows. On my windows-box I only use opera [opera.com], and I fail to see how IE6 is better than Opera in any way.
Some DHTML is not yet supported, but that's the only drawback. IE falls short on any of the above mantioned features.
-s-
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1)
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:1)
- Poor CSS support
- You either pay for it or get adverts
- On my system it loads no faster than IE
Maybe those aren't big gripes for you, but for me they are.Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2, Informative)
Poor CSS support
This is simply not true. It supports all of CSS1 according to the specifications, and a lot of CSS2.
Check out this chart [webreview.com] to compare the CSS implementation of different browsers and browser versions.
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2)
(Hint: Support for the DOM read-only methods is EASY. Support for the read-write methods is HARD.)
Re:IE 6 vs others (Score:2)
Hmm... IE6 doesn't seem to be as stable as IE 5.5. I have had things like font rendering problems and 'hangs' in the system. They have imbedded things like a media player directly into the browser and whenever that or MSN Messenger have problems, it's effecting the browser for some reason.
I am sure that they will work it out.. but IE6 is definately not their highest quality browser released IMHO (5.0 had problems until they fixed it up shortly after release)
Browser wars? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but this time, the browser wars will be a fight to provide customers with the highest level of web standards compliance, rendering speed, cross-platform capability, and truly useful features. I, for one, think that this sounds like a good thing. (Even though I will probably not be using anything but Konqueror ever again.)
What browser wars? (Score:1)
Re:Browser wars? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? When was it that 99% of the population geeked-out? I must've missed it.
I dare you to go ask an average AOL user to even define the term "web standards compliance". You won't get a good answer.
The majority of people on the internet don't give a second thought to web standards or cross platform compatibility. They might care about rendering speed but they sure as heck don't view that as a function of their browser. They've been reared to think that their machine is too slow and they need the next uberPentium. The majority of users care about the content, not the delivery mechanism. If MSN were to provide 100% of the content that people want--in an exciting and snappy way--then they could use whatever browser technology and/or delivery mechanism that they wanted. The same is true for AOL or any other large content provider (notice I didn't say ISP).
Under the hood technologies don't mean a whit to the people that pay the subscription fees. It's the message, not the messenger that they care about.
On MozillaZine too... (Score:5, Informative)
Gecko, making AOL more fustrating than ever. (Score:1, Flamebait)
--MarauderJr@aol.com
AOL user since version 1.0
Re:Gecko, making AOL more fustrating than ever. (Score:1)
...hmmmmm...
then, after a few years, we geeks we'll thank AOL for taking all the hassle...
The world is a strange place, isn't it?
Re:Gecko, making AOL more fustrating than ever. (Score:1)
Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this will finally convince [firstusa.com] my [mbna.com] banks [calfed.com] that Mozilla is a real web browser. It's annoying having to switch back to Netscape 4.x to use online banking just because they haven't bothered to test and adjust for Mozilla. And yes, I know what it takes to make a major web site [disneystore.com] Mozilla compliant. (I was formerly employed by a large rodent. ;-) ).
- Stealth Dave
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, the site WOULD work if not for that stupid check. Yes, we can make the browser pretend it's another browser (Konqueror and Opera do that quite easily), but we shouldn't have to...
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:1)
One interesting feature of Konqueror is that it allows you to change the User-Agent string on the fly
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the wrong way to solve the problem, because when a site has a good reason to check your UA, such as a known crash in your version of Konq, they won't be able to redirect you away from the crash.
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe this will finally convince my banks... (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
This could get very interesting, I don't think this is a browser war, I think it's an ISP war...
Would YOU distribute software of your newly aquired #1 competitor??
Replace AOL (Score:4, Funny)
I fear this is just corperate posturing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I do support Mozilla, in fact I am writing this on Mozilla
Re:I fear this is just corperate posturing. (Score:2)
"United We Stand Divided We Fall" is built into our heritage. Just because we stand united against an enemy (regarldess of circumstances) does not mean we are becoming a bunch of mindless drones. Thats why we have freedom of speech here (not that you don't) and thats what makes democracy so great. We can criticize our government, even in times like these. Of course, now you do have to take into account the circumstances and show a little couth. Thats true in everyday life as well. If you're girlfriend had gained 20 lbs you wouldn't say "man you're a fat@ss".... you might say something like "hey baby, how about we both go on a diet... my pants are a little tight and I want someone to help me out"
The point is we just have to take into account 9/11, but we can still say whatever we want. So please don't confuse nationalism with patriotism. Nationalism has the bad stigma patriotism does not. Please do not confuse the two. America is still a rational people and we will still use common sense.
JOhn
I was *wondering* (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting.
AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:5, Informative)
It is a iMac type box which you can have for about 20 dollars a month with internet connection. It uses Linux with Mozilla as the web browser. It's made so your grandma can use it.
They are looking for an inital roll-out of 500,000 units, moving up to about a million. They are doing this in conjunction with a national bank.
So, AOL is already using Gecko/Mozilla, maybe just not in the USA.
Personally I believe that this is a trial of a service that they wish to rollout in many other countries. I think they choose Spain to try not to generate too attention on it. It wouldn't suprise me if they had plans to roll this out in many other European countries, and perhaps Latin America.
More here [internetnews.com]
Re:AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:1)
I'd be curious if anyone can verify if this Spain box is actually mozilla.
verified (Score:3, Interesting)
Comments on it vary. Some people say it's OK for Joe Public. Others say it sucks and hangs up. One says that the Mozilla and Linux distribution is very heavily modified and it is difficult to tell which versions they are using.
Someone points out that the box is basically the Intel Dot.Station Web Appliance. The spec. for the box is here [intel.com].
The spec. says:
* Custom Intel browser based on Mozilla-- the world's most standards-compliant browser technology.
And later:
* Custom Linux operating system for increased flexibility and innovation.
More information about AOL avant from Intel's web site here [intel.com].
Re:verified (Score:2)
Re:AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:2, Informative)
Re:AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:2)
So do you think my theory (that this is a trial for rollout in other countries) is correct?
Where are you based? In Madrid? I can't get anything out of your web site (carotena.net)
Re:AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:1)
Re:AOL uses Mozilla outside US (Score:2, Interesting)
I worked on a contract in AOL-Avant in Madrid and the main problem was that these computers were Yet Another Platform that needed to be developed for.
Mozilla was for the most part fine, but there were little problems with both the browser and the platform. For example, at the time (I'm not sure about now) the mailto: links didn't work because the custom email program on the box wasn't integrated with Mozilla.
There were also problems the html rendering of tables, etc. You had to develop java scripts that detected IE, Netscape, AND Mozilla on the "Paquitos" (it's what they called the machines... it was a play on words on iMac/iPaq)
Now... the COOL thing was when one of the system guys from Intel walked over and put a USB-based key into the side of the machine and this "dumb" terminal with only basic functionality became a full-fledged Linux box with a command-line, etc.
-Russ
Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Never thought I'd see the day (Score:2)
Woah, merja-vu.
smaller, faster, good. code bloat bad. (Score:2)
every so often i have to launch AOL to see how (if) my work is functioning correctly under AOL's hackward-ass implementation of IE. (and to check out the britney chat rooms for hot hot chicks, just kidding, put the gasoline away) Whenever i do i love the way it lumbers into consciousness, shakes off the dust of sleep and ponderously begins to connect to the server...
yeah i would love to see AOL move to a smaller, lithe, tightly coded browser that would spring up and start 'a parsing... then again i would prefer if AOL would just throw it in and hook into whatever the user's default browser was, or allow the user (assuming he/she was a complete AOL ISP slave) to d/l one of their own.... then again i really wish AOL would go the way of delphi and berma-shave....also: me being taller and more handsome...
Re:smaller, faster, good. code bloat bad. (Score:2)
Oh come on, if the users knew what a default browser was, or how to download a different one, or why they should, they probably wouldn't be using AOL in the first place.
Re:smaller, faster, good. code bloat bad. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:smaller, faster, good. code bloat bad. (Score:2)
Surely you are not talking about Mozilla here, are you ? On every machine I have tried running Mozilla on, it runs like a pig that has had two of its legs broken.
Number of AOL Users vs IE Users (Score:5, Interesting)
anyone know of an open source VB-Script engine? part o the problem with using mozill ain corporate intranet stuff is that lots of developers tend to end up using VB-Script because it's easy - with an opensource VB-Script we could implement XPCom bindings as well as page level DOM stuff in VB-Script.
ps.slashdot: what the hell is this invalid formkeys error? I get it when it try to post in mozilla - a slashdot/M$ conspiracy if ever I saw one..
Re:Number of AOL Users vs IE Users (Score:2)
Bullsh*t.
Mozilla is being used in the Intel Dot.station, Nokia Media Terminal, Instant AOL Touchpad, Printer assistant from HP, IBM web browser for OS2, Redhat, Debian and a bunch of other Linux distributions, and a lot of other places besides. Not bad for an application that hasn't even got to 1.0 yet. And we can expect to see adoption of it really pick up speed since it has become really stable over the last couple of months.
Re:Number of AOL Users vs IE Users (Score:2)
And it's subjective which is easier since a lot of people would be more comfortable with the C/C++/Java like syntax in JS.
Either way it all boils down to this - Javascript (or I should say ECMAScript) is a industry standard, universally recognized as the scripting language for client-side web work, whereas VBScript is a proprietary language that only runs in a single browser. Unless you're developing for that one browser, I see no reason for using VBScript.
things are just going fine... (Score:1)
And Mozilla finally reaches its aim to be a browser farmework that can be used everywhere: Webpads, other bwrowsers and stuff like the compuserve/AOL Software. Hope the German ISP T-online does something in that way too 8they're using IE in their current Windows-all-in-one solution).
X
Negative Aspects Making OSS A Product, Not Process (Score:1, Insightful)
You may ask, "what about other companies 'selling' open software, such as IBM?" My response to this would be simple. I don't have a problem with anybody capitalizing on open source so long as they contribute something in return. IBM is doing this - they are partly an open source development shop. Furthermore, with their case, even if IBM weren't contributing, they are selling a product that doesn't equate to software. Hardware running open source software. That's different... they make their money on the hardware, and try to benefit the customers for it. AOL, bear in mind, sells a service and I doubt many benefits (aside from the quality of Gekco), such as reduced costs, will be passed onto the end users.
I'm also kind of annoyed that this will favor AOL's position. They're strengthening themselves, and inherent to their relationships with other large corps. like Microsoft, it may be bad for OSS in the long run, but only in some facets.
I hope I do not sound pig headed. I am not trying to bash needlessly, or say that open software shouldn't be used in as many places as possible. It's just a thought.
Re:Negative Aspects Making OSS A Product, Not Proc (Score:5, Informative)
Saying they contribute nothing is a bit unfair.
Also, AOL has actually released a few other Open Source applications. Take a look at AOLserver [aolserver.com] for instance.
AOL isn't my favorite company, but they aren't all bad all the time :)
Re:Negative Aspects Making OSS A Product, Not Proc (Score:2, Redundant)
Uhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AOL funding a significant chunk of Mozilla development? Don't they have programmers on staff working on this stuff?
Re:Negative Aspects Making OSS A Product, Not Proc (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm, AOL employs the majority of the Mozilla developers. Whatever you want to say about AOL, one cannot justly say they don't contribute to the OSS community.
If you don't believe me, go to www.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] and browse until you find lists of module owners and contributors. Or search bugzilla. Note that something like three quarters of the e-mail addresses end in @netscape.com.
Is Anyone Surprised? (Score:1)
CompuServe (Score:2)
Some lovely posts here, just lovely. Do it, AOL. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, pack me off to Bugtussle, Beulah, seems this swamp ain't as nice as it looked.
Big hint, here, guys: standardizing on defacto standards owned by a company that demonstrates allegience to no one but itself (check out the recent enterprise licensing schemes if you think MS cares about its customers one whit) is a reliable way to get screwed.
That's especially true when you consider that, in this case, "standardizing" means making a conscious decision to exclude a portion of the browsing public. Can't be the fairest thing to do when you work for paying customers who need the biggest bang for their buck.
Big cheers to AOL if they go ahead with this. I'm damned sure that most big sites will not tolerate web developers who lock out that much of their audience. I neither like nor use the AOL service, but I promise to say nice things about it if this happens.
Mr. Gecko (Score:5, Funny)
Actually they've spotted pieces of Geico, which can save CompuServe customers 15% or more on car insurance.
Gecko is swell. (Score:2)
Bottom line, I don't hate my Linux web browser anymore, and Gecko/Galeon is the reason why. If AOL can use Gecko to, say, spit out shitloads of cheap Linux X terminals for clients, so much the better.
And if they're only using it to strongarm MS, that's okay too.
The day has come... (Score:3, Funny)
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31
(Red Letter Edition)
AOL Linux distro (Score:2)
I'd like to see AOL make their own Linux-based kiosk-like distro. Now that Ximian Red Carpet is maturing, adding an AOL channel would be pretty darn easy.
I would absolutely rebuild my Mom's old PC as an AOL kiosk for her. I know a real estate agent who uses Compuserve does all his MLS work on the web, and calls me whenever he gets the virus du jour. Definitely needs an AOL kiosk.
Big winners: Konqueror and Opera (Score:3, Insightful)
But if they go through with it, they'd certainly force lots of Web sites to become more standards-compliant. So other makers of standards-compliant browsers would benefit hugely, with no risk to themselves. This would be a very good thing.
Personally I suspect AOL is just testing the waters, and won't go with Gecko until it is very much better than IE.
Re:Why not KHTML? (Score:1)
The 2.2.1 version doesn't seem have any noticeable memory leak. It's fast. It hardly ever crashes (though, admittedly, it happens). It displays most pages very well. It's compatible with Netscape plugins.
Most display problems are actually due to faulty HTML that IE is more tolerant with; for example, unclosed <table>.
Re:Why not KHTML? (Score:2)
2. KHTML is based on Qt, which requires commercial licensing on Windows
3. Gecko is a better and faster renderer.
4. AOL/Netscape is more familiar with Gecko, since it is their product.
Re:Why not KHTML? (Score:2)
The notion was so incredibly rediculuous, that it could only be described as a troll.
I have nothing against KHTML, in fact I think it is a fine product.
But why on EARTH would you ditch something that is more mature, more sophisticated, already cross-platform (not only wrappers, or ports to small OSes), and something you are totally familiar with.
The KDE-trolling has to stop, the KDE-developers don't do this, they just program and create a splendid product, but some of the users are doing KDE a disfavor by trolling.
Re:Why not KHTML? (Score:2, Informative)
I have nothing against KHTML, in fact I think it is a fine product. But why on EARTH would you ditch something that is more mature, more sophisticated, already cross-platform..
Com'on, nobody was ditching Mozilla. But, in fact, it would be funny to see AOL and CompuServe going to KHTML instead of Mozilla/Gecko.
Anyway, I can't agree with you that Mozilla is "more mature, more sophisticated" than KHTML. Mozilla is 3.5 years old, KHTML in fact about 1 year old. I am very much impressed that KDE developers could do in 1 year, and Mozilla - in 3.5 years. But note that development speed for KHTML is 3 times faster than Mozilla's one
(not only wrappers, or ports to small OSes), and something you are totally familiar with.
Have you ever heard of Konqueror/Embedded?
It's already in many embedded devices, including PDAs and Internet Kiosks. So, Konq is pretty much portable. Do I need to remind you about Konq/Embedded ports to BeOS and AtheOS?
Re:Stability, advancement (Score:2, Informative)
KHTML is way less stable than Mozilla, even though Mozilla isn't to 1.0 yet
Bullsh**t. KHTML is very stable. If you are not happy with some third-party JavaScript-based web sites, turn off JavaScript support. As I wrote in another posting, do not mix JS with DHTML. These are different things. Konqueror has the best CSS2 support [w3.org] on the market, so far. Click on link above or here to see how W3C CSS page [w3.org] renders in Konq. Compare than it to MS IE6 or other browsers.
All that and I didn't even get into the speed advantage...
Are you kidding? Konqueror [konqueror.org] starts in 3 sec. on my computer, while Mozilla needs 20-25 seconds to start!
Besides, Konq opens new window in less than 1 sec., while Mozilla needs 3 sec.(!) to open new window. Minimize/Maximize actions are also pretty slow for Mozilla.
Favor of IE (Score:2)
That's just it. If you want to surf the web then you must use Windows. Let's face it folks, Al Gore didn't invent the Internet. Microsoft INNOVATED it. Bleh.
Don't bitch about everyone not being good little boys and failing to use IE. Insist on DOCUMENTED standards compliance. Documented does not mean: use the following COM system call to..........
Show me a fully crossplatform and open IE and I'll allow that you have a point. There is isn't one? Oh.
Re:Yes... very nice... (Score:2)
IE can't render CSS for shit. What are you smoking? And unless they've fixed it recently, their javascript implementation is not compliant either (for example, they used to ditch the case-sensitivity of variables)
Re:Yes... very nice... (Score:2)
And forcing everyone to "go Microsoft" is NOT making things cheaper, in case you hadn't noticed, Windows is fscking expensive, and its *getting more expensive* lately.
Fsck