Slashdot Log In
Has Netscape's Browser Become Too Self-Serving?
Posted by
Cliff
on Wed Nov 15, 2000 02:58 PM
from the i-hate-that-bloody-'shop'-button-too! dept.
from the i-hate-that-bloody-'shop'-button-too! dept.
bschoate wrote in with a good question about everyone's favorite browser: "I just installed Netscape 6 and it continues and expands the practice of providing numerous ways to use Netscape.com to promote Netscape, Inc. (or AOL for that matter). I've found at least 42 (hey- there's that magic number again) toolbar or menu options that will take you to netscape.com for everything from buying printer supplies to business Web hosting. That's not even counting any of the side bar stuff like "Find and Book Travel". And, all of those tie-ins are littered with banner ads. So even if you don't buy anything, you're still generating revenue for Netscape on some level. Frankly, I see it as a slap in the face to Mozilla, since all their volunteered hard work has created a product that will line Netscape's pockets. Does any of the money generated by the browser get back to Mozilla? I kinda doubt it." Harsh words, but the more I think about it, the more I believe he has a point. Do any of you feel the same way, and if so, how do you feel that the problem should be solved?
"Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Internet Explorer's only link back to microsoft.com is through the 'Windows Update' feature where there is nothing to buy. To me, it's quite a double-standard-- Microsoft would be immediately dragged to court if they had one button in IE that led to a service to buy or a banner ad.
What do /.ers think about this practice? Personally, I would cringe every time I used the Netscape browser to even do an in-the-address bar search (using the '? some-text-here' syntax), since the results come with a banner ad served up by 'ads.web.aol.com'.
I find this very troubling and very frustrating."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Has Netscape's Browser Become Too Self-Serving?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 490 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
IE lacks standards support (Score:3)
It may be true that the IE application is more robust, but the IE rendering engine lacks a lot of the W3C standards support that Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine boasts. Supporting W3C standards means that we won't all be forced to use Windows just to view ESPN.com.
So the solution is for somebody to take Gecko, and build a better application around it.
- Scott.
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:5)
I'm a big open source fan and I have my own open source project so I am biased in a major way towards free software, but I have to doubt the sanity of anybody who can claim that the netscape/mozilla browser is better then ie. Just because we want it to win doesn't mean that it will. Just because we hate to see the giant monopolistic company produce a superior product doesn't stop them from doing so. IMHO the absolute worst thing the OSS community can do is bury it's angry head in the sand and pretend that no matter what we do it's better because we stand for the right cause.
And for those who are complaing about all the links to netscape etc., I suggest you call them up and demand a full refund for your product.
SmartDownload is worse (Score:5)
Opera is your friend, it doesn't do nonsense like that.
You get what you deserve (Score:3)
Much of the Mozilla development was done by full-time employees of Netscape Corporation, now a unit of AOL. As long as they don't block access to competitors (granted, we're still waiting for an open IM, but that's not so much browser-related) we have no right to complain about their self-promotion. They even make it possible for competitors to create sidebars and such things to add on to the browser their own doo-dads if they care to take the effort to develop them and can convince people to install them.
I applaud AOL for their self-promotion method. They have given us massive amounts of open-source code to do with what we please. They have done most of the work to produce Mozilla, and they have made a polished and specialized binary for the average user. Their binary adds features that the average user wants. The average user buys the 18 gig hard drive because the nice person on the phone tells them it's good. They don't care about code bloat. They don't understand memory footprints. They just know that they have a nice, fast computer, and that it can play their mp3s while browsing the web and talking to their friends on IM. AOL has given them what they want, and has given us what we want, too.
Thank you, AOL.
Microsoft IE vs Netscape mentality (Score:5)
But there isn't. Rather, there is a more standards-compliant browser underneath. A slow, bloated buggy one with foreign widgets, but it's more standards compliant, man. Of course if nobody wants to use it because of all the other garbage, does it matter if it's more standards compliant?
IE is successful because it wins on the details. It's not as standards compliant. However, it has none of the shit that you have to wade throught to make Netscape 6 usable. It doesn't install MSN instant messanger. It doesn't install a "Install MSN" icon on your desktop. This of course isn't enough to win the browser wars. But it also has this going for it: It's faster, It uses less RAM, and it's standards compliant enough (TM).
In all the respects that matter to those of us who actually have to code serious HTML it's a worse browser than Netscape 6. But as almost every project based on idealism rather than pragmatism, Netscape misses out on the details. That's why it's Linux not HURD. And that's why it's IE not Netscape. Mozilla could be at best awesome and IE at best adequate. But IE is adequate, right now, and Netscape 6 is poor right now.
I'll end with my new favorite Linus quote (from linux-kernel,) which I now consider the primary reason Linux has done so well so far:
Re:Some Comments (Score:5)
> Mozilla people.
Yes, almost all of them in fact.
This is partly because just about every volunteer who gets deeply into the project and demonstrates competency is immediately offered a job at Netscape
AOL Yanks Banner Blocking Feature (Score:3)
One of the features I most love about mozilla is that you can right click on an ad banner and block all images from the originating server. Thus I can go through and block the ads from annoying places like doubleclick, but leave ads if they don't actively annoy me. Of course since ad banners make the net go 'round, AOL can't very well have a netscape that provides the ability to block banners.
---
Re:Microsoft IE vs Netscape mentality (Score:5)
Got a clean Netscape, no junk. No AIM, no Winamp, no Realplayer, no spellcheckers which I wouldn't use anyways.
Exactly WHAT did you guys install?
First rule of the software installer: no matter what the source, NEVER use the "typical" setups. ALWAYS go Custom and remove the cruft.
Next generation browsers (Score:3)
It's things like this which make me look towards the next generation of browsers-- I love iCab's ability to ignore images based on what path they have (eg, any path with '/ads/' in it, or on a machine named 'ads') or the image size (1x1 pixels, or the standard banner sizes).
How they handle cookies is nice, too, as you're allowed to reject or accept domains as a whole, while still prompting for all others.
For those people who don't have a Mac, you probably have one or two hold out friends with one, so have them grab a copy, and you'll see what I mean:
http://www.icab.de/ [www.icab.de]
[oh...and it's under 2megs, too....although they're still working on CSS support]
All I see from Netscape is a much needed update for a buggy product; it's not a significant break through, even if it was a complete code re-write..
Netscape-bashing (Score:5)
I'm saddened by seeing that Netscape-bashing has become so popular. Netscape is not just getting a free ride from the hard work of the Mozilla contributors. Speaking as a Mozilla contributor, I have to say that it's Netscape engineers who do about 70-90% of the work (my estimate). This means that Mozilla would have taken more like 15 years to get to where it is right now if it were not for the time and money invested by Netscape
Having tried Netscape 6.0 on Linux, I have to say that it is noticeably faster than the current Mozilla nightlies and somewhat more stable. Yes, there are several known bugs, but overall it is an excellent product.
You ask whether Netscape has gone too far? I ask you whether you have gone so far in your hubris that somehow an open-source project to which you have not contributed (and yes, in this case that means Netscape) owes you something. Netscape is offering its Netcenter service to the people using its browser. No one is forcing you to use these menu options or buttons. All the buttons that go to netcenter can be turned off in the preferences! A desktop icon can be deleted. From what I recall of the last time I installed Windows software, creating a courtesy desktop shortcut to the software or to resources related to that software was a common practice....
As for those Slashdor readers who have contributed to Mozilla, I would like to hear your views on the matter. I believe that the Mozilla community has a much better opinion of Netscape than the Slashdot community at large.
Who's care about the self-promotion... (Score:4)
Re:Help your Mozilla (Score:4)
go to the ftp, and find the Netscape6 directory for your platform. Find the xpi/ directory and download all the crap in there. Then, all you have to do is open up the files in the borwser and they will install themselves. That's all there is to it, theres an AIM component as well as a java package and many more. The directory for my browser would be: /pub/netscape6/english/6.0/unix/linux22/xpi, but of course, YMMV depending on platform.
Re:This is the STUPIDEST Netscape complaint I've s (Score:3)
> Users expect a certain minimum set of features. That set is larger now than it was 2 years ago.
I guess what I was really getting at is best addressed by another response I have to the orignal post.
> > > Why can't we get people on Slashdot to talk about the REAL developer issues surrounding Mozilla instead
Why can't we get developers of Mozilla to talk about the real user issues surrounding Mozilla?
Or is Mozilla supposed to end up like Amaya - a useful testbed for standards compliance, but something which is never used by anyone?
(Yes, that's a gross overstatement, but there's a kernel of truth to it.)
You're right that users expect a certain minimum feature set. What I'm arguing is that the features the Netscape developers haven't considered their user base.
Who's served by Mozilla and NS6?
- Advertisers in NS6.
- Developers through the debugging code.
- Developers through all the discussions on standards-compliance.
- People who think XML is cool, not because of what it can do, but because it's XML.
Who's not served by Mozilla or NS6?Two years ago, it was possible for Netscape to say "We've written a better browser, and you web developers better code your web sites so our browser can render it".
Today, the balance of power has swung - rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly) - back to the web developers. Web developers don't care that NS6 is standards-compliant. And end users don't care either - the typical end user cares only that www.cnn.com renders. If it renders in IE and not NS, NS's market share will continue to diminish.
Ask yourself this: Does Joe Luzer want a standards-compliant browser (whatever that may mean :), or does he want something that they can use - today, not after the Glorious People's Revolution and All Web Pages are rewritten to conform with the spec - in place of IE?
Linux without Netscape? (Score:3)
don't forget mozilla wouldn't exist without netscape, so don't go there.
there are starting to be some acceptable options, Konqueror and Opera aren't bad, but I'd guess 70% of my computing (maybe more? yikes) is probably related to web surfing, and I doubt I'm alone.
Sure, there are the insane people who insist you can see everything you need from lynx, but for the rest of us, Linux would be far less useful if Netscape didn't exist for it, and as much as we HATE to admit it, we'd be better off if the one browser which has bulldozed it's way to a userbase of what, 90% now, was available for us in linux.
We need Netscape, and we need it to be good.
________
Re:Counterpoint (Score:3)
Internet Explorer (Score:3)
A little off topic: No matter what people say, the user interface of MS software is one of the best thought up, the back end, of course does leave a bit to be desired. I personally am waiting for MS Window Manager. With this in front and Linux as the engine, you couldn't go wrong.
A point-by-point comparison is in order here... (Score:5)
Here's my take:
1) Standards Compliance
IE for Windows has better standards compliance than Nav 4.x, but nowhere near as good as Mozilla. IE for Mac is almost as good as that of Mozilla, from what I've read (but no way am I gonna use a Mac just for that!) IE 6 is just around the corner, apparently - let's hope it ups their standards. "We've upped our standards, so up yours!" and all that...
2) Speed
IE seems to connect & download pages faster, and displays very fast (and incrementally reflows, too, even on browser resizing). Nav 4.x connects fast, downloads okay, and displays fairly fast, but has no incremental reflow - very annoying. Mozilla connects, displays, and reflows faster than anything (at least, as of the last night's nightly build). Fastest of all - K-Meleon (Galeon for Windows, basically). Any native framework around the Gecko rendering engine is likely to be faster than anything else. You may pay the price in other features, though (K-Meleon is currently _extremely_ barebones, though that will change soon, I hope.)
3) Stability
IE on Win98SE - not the greatest, on a par (for me, on four completely different machines) with Nav 4.x - only problem is, when it crashes, it often forces you to reboot, or just locks up the whole machine, which Nav 4.x doesn't do. Mozilla - as of last night's daily build, it's 'okay' - the main problem is the Manage Bookmarks feature, which is SLOW SLOW SLOW, and buggy as hell. It doesn't correctly import older Nav 4.x bookmarks (my bookmarks file is rather huge), and moving them around you can lose things entirely, and it's just amazingly slow. It causes the browser to slow down on loadup with a large bookmarks file, too. Very irritating. Hopefully this will change - stability & speedups are currently in the works. Numerous reports of major memory leaks in Mozilla - obviously this browser is still in heavy development though.
4) Interface
IE - pretty standard Windows - easy to figure out if that's what you've been using. Horribly crippled interface for managing bookmarks. Just Horrible. And I hate how they're stored, too (each URL as an individual file, though that's a personal preference).
Nav 4.x - mostly standard for Windows - has some quirks. Very good bookmark management - allows much better bookmark access than any of the others, including Mozilla.
Mozilla - needs to take a look at managing bookmarks & accessing bookmarks in Nav 4.x and implement it. Needs 10-50x speed improvement (not exaggerating) in bookmark management. Something seriously wrong there. In the interface arena, Mozilla will have major advantages for heavy customization, and customization more easily accomplished than for IE, but with the possibility of loading down the browser with a lot of junk - but that's the user's choice! Lean and mean theme or heavy on the eye candy - it's up to you. Choice is Good(tm). I prefer a native widget set framework around the Gecko engine, so I like Galeon for Linux, and I think the K-Meleon project for Windows will do quite well in the future. I've heard that there may be a similar project for the MacOS, but I don't know. Considering the reported quality of IE for the Mac, I'm not sure how necessary that is, unless someone wants a native Mac OS X type browser.
5) Platform Independence
IE - total joke. "Multiple platforms" from MS means Win2K, WinME & Win98 at best. Nav 4.x - excellent. Mozilla - also excellent.
6) Features
IE - very very good, especially considering it's target market. Very good feature set if you're not concerned with security by default (yes, Microsoft, I mean you). On an Intranet basis, IE and it's ActiveX controls can do some fantastic things. On the Internet at large, freaking scary. It's got good regular browser features except for the horribly-crippled bookmark management & access, which should be an easy fix (you'd think).
Nav 4.x - pretty good, better cookie & cache management than IE (though I think there may be an update for additional cookie features for IE - not sure). Very good bookmark management (on a par with Spry Mosaic of old...). Incremental reflow - none, which is very very bad.
Mozilla - very very good, easily on a par with IE for Internet usage - better bookmark management, though still quite buggy in that department. Better cookie management, also has better image loading management (ability to only load images from the same domain as the website - which is not present in the Navigator 6). Very extensible, albeit in a different way than IE.
So that's my take on the situation. Each browser has it's good and bad points - like anything else, it's a matter of how things work on YOUR systems (some people find IE more stable than Nav 4.x, some less so - depends on your machine). Many interface issues are a matter of personal preference. Some people don't need the extensive bookmark handling that I demand. Some people want better security. Some people don't run Windows as their primary platform (or at all). Keep in mind many of IE's loading speed advantages are being it loads many DLLs at bootup - Nav & Mozilla aren't allowed to do that. Also note that using a native widget framework around the Gecko renderer can help approach that loading speed (you folks really should check out the K-Meleon project).
Okay, that's enough for now...
This is the STUPIDEST Netscape complaint I've seen (Score:5)
Just use Mozilla? (Score:3)
Haven't the inclination yet to try netscape 6, so we'll just see what Mozilla matures to...
Jason
Help your Mozilla (Score:4)
Rather than fix up NS6, try this on for size:
Copy the contents of the PLUGINS folder from Netscape 6 into the BIN/PLUGINS folder of Mozilla (except for npnul32.dll) to increase plugin compatability for Mozilla.
This was the final step for me; now I use Mozilla for all browser activities. - oh, and this is for Windows, so I don't know how it will work on Linux or Mac.
oh, and don't overwrite anything, and do include the CVS subdirectory. enjoy!
Counterpoint (Score:5)
I make no argument concerning the fair treatment of Mozilla developers; I don't know enough about that to comment. But I did want to throw the above into the mix!
-Omar
failing to see the point (Score:3)
Furthermore, open source software is used across the board for profitable operations. What about Apache? This is a true community project, that is used left and right for commercial purposes (ahem...Slashdot?). Should we bitch and complain that Apache is being used by nefarious corporate entities with the sole purpose of making a buck?
Re:It wouldn't bug me if (Score:3)
to take it another step..read this [linux.com]
That will get rid of all the crap on the tool bar. Also edit the Netscape.ad file (forget where it is), to make a ton of changes to the way netscape looks, and feels.
Re:This is the STUPIDEST Netscape complaint I've s (Score:5)
but isn't part of the point of open source that we can develop better software instead of bloatware?
Do you actually code?
You want full (compliant) implementations with all sorts of things like style sheets, javascript, the latest html standard, and at the same time you want the brower to run like hot shit off a greased shovel. Hate to break it to you, but with the amounts that those things have evolved its a hell of a lot more than the NS3 team ever had to even think about. Even if you go feature for feature with NS3 (lets say javascript support) I garuantee you the current implementations are going to be slower (and larger), because the standards have grown to encompas more things. You have to put in new hooks and rewrite your code to support more stuff. Its not bloatware. Users expect a certain minimum set of features. That set is larger now than it was 2 years ago. The software has to grow to accomodate it, it has to do more work to implement them. Now add in some debugging code and hell no wonder its slower than 4.76 (at least on my P200 MMX) but it doesn't crash half as much.
--locust.
Picture it... (Score:4)
Just try to kick IE's ass... that's all that needs to be focused on.
Strive for standards.
Become a small and efficient browser that works on all platforms
Try to think of *one way* to make money for the company -- do the AOL no-homepage thing, or sell it for $10 a crack.
and then I don't think anything could stop it from being the best / most profitale browser.
----
Of course the money goes back to Mozilla (Score:3)
Get serious! (Score:4)
Instead of complaining about it, we should be glad that Netscape is still heavily supporting Mozilla development. So in fact, some of those dollars do go back into Mozilla.
Netscape moot? (Score:3)
As I surf web sites, more are putting features into the browser that are best viewed on Windows boxes. The old standard for HTML-rich sites used to be "Our web page is best viewed with a Netscape or Microsoft browser". Now people mainly develop for IE first and work in compatability for Mozilla, AOL and/or WebTV (still a significant percentage, but dwindling into unimportance).
AOL bought Netscape, so AOL will keep it alive until it make more sense to put something else on their direct-mail CDs. Long live Mozilla.
What's up with Neoplanet? They used to be a cool alternative to Mozilla when it didn't crash my Windows PC.
-- EZ
Re:This is the STUPIDEST Netscape complaint I've s (Score:3)
And just why shouldn't it run fine on a 486/50? NS3 did.
OK, so we're both exaggerating with that 486/50 crack, but isn't part of the point of open source that we can develop better software instead of bloatware?
I can understand "haha, u luzer, gotta upgr8d!" coming from Micros~1, who has a vested interest in making sure we all get on the upgrade treadmill with each revision of the OS and office suite - the corporate purchaser then purchases more Dells and Compaqs, and MSFT gets to sell more OS licenses.
But from the open source camp, I find that attitide to be disgusting.
Sort of a Well Duh statement (Score:3)
Personally, I gave up on Netscape itself a long time ago. I'm using Mozilla when I can but still end up falling back on IE 5 pretty often.
From the beginning of the Mozilla project, I've just seen Netscape as a "Real Browser Plus AOL advertizing" product, and can't for the life of me think of a single reason to even consider using full-blown Netscape instead of Mozilla.
The Netscape browser exists for the single purpose of selling something. If you just want a (relatively) clean, simple browser use Mozilla.
Of course the Netscape browser is full of ads and flashy eye candy, that's the whole point of not just calling Mozilla Netscape.
This article is not very different from complaining about a Ford logo on a Ford truck. Of COURSE Netscape's browser is full of links, it exists for advertizing purposes. IE doesn't have that extra fluff because IE isn't there to sell a browser, but claim market scare for Microsoft. IE isn't a product on it's own, it's a grab for market share.
www.matthewmiller.net [matthewmiller.net]
This is to be expected. (Score:5)
If there is demand for a different project based of the Mozilla code that doesn't spam you every step of the way to go to Netscape.com, someone will compile it. Noone forced you to use Netscape, and if Netscape dies, oh well, Mozilla will live and someone else will take up the project.
Mozilla team has given us a great browser. (Score:4)
Same could be same for any commercial company that uses open source software. Redhat has linux, HelixCode has Gnome. TT has KDE (Look at GPL of KDE if you don't believe). To make a long story short, that is the food chain.
The reality of it, 90% of mozilla engineers paychecks come from netscape/aol. They are not forced to be there.
The fact that AOL lets players like Galeon and Eazel use GTKMozEmbed for applications is great. That is where the real value of Moz lies. Also, the platform capabilities of mozilla have not even begun to be touched yet.
Only they really know the magnitude of what they created.
;-) It will only get better, faster and more optimized. (As will IE/Opera/Konqu./etc). For me and you as the end user, thats great! Choices , remember.
--------------------
Yes... Netscape is Dead... (Score:3)
Now, this will come as heresy to
Plug-ins in IE are - just by empirical observation here folks - more stable, too. Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat, etc. all cause various problems on my Netscape installs, more so than under IE. Microsoft's JVM is better, as is their implementation of ECMA/JavaScript (embarrasingly for both Sun and Netscape, really). After being lambasted for being nothing but a marketing organization, Microsoft has put a lot of time and money into making the last couple versions of IE really good...
Netscape seems to have decided to take just the opposite approach and become nothing more than a marketing arm of AOL... all the good work is being done for by the Mozilla folks, and as volunteers they're having a hard time keeping up with the big bucks of M$. AOL seems to not give a damn about putting any money into the project to give the engineering effort a fighting chance against the stuff M$ is doing.
IE, at least on Windows, and in the versions I've tested on Linux, is just faster, more stable, more flexible in terms of add-ons it will accept without problems... better.
I'd like to see Mozilla kick their ass, but to do that, I think N$/AOhelL needs to do more than just sponge off their efforts and build links to annoying adverts...
I've Given Up On Netscape (Score:4)
Here are some of my complaints so far...
1) Netscape's 6.0 installer is very unstable, and has a hard time coping with download problems because of stalls, etc. In fact, it took me a good four tries to get it to actually finish the install. Why can't we just have a tarball or something?
2) Netscape 6 itself breaks a number of standards supported in Mozilla, and is far too oriented to meet AOL's money-grubbing desires. Pardon me, but the browser should be for the user, not JUST the company. Companies have to make money, but I get tired of every single button or menu I click taking me to the horribly-slow Netscape site.
3) Netscape 6 is very unstable, yet the Mozilla code it is based off of runs much more smoothly. Looks like all those commercial tie-ins are causing Netscape to sink under its own commercial weight.
I had high hopes for Netscape. But it just doesn't cut it. I use the Opera for Linux port now, which, even though it is still in the alpha stage technically, can run circles around anything Netscape or Mozilla puts out. Sure there's no Java or plug-in support yet (neither of which I'm desperately needing), and it occasionally crashes, but at least it doesn't have all those weird glitches and standards issues that Netscape has.
On the Linux side, I think it's time we all start looking for or working on something better. I think the BrowseX [browsex.com] browser looks particularly promising. It's open source, very capable already, and with some more development, could give the closed commercial browsers run for their money. But whatever happens, I honestly don't think Netscape will ever get much better. AOL simply has its priorities wrong, and has done a disservice to everyone by not coming through on a viable alternative browser.
-----
Anything that can go wr
Re:SmartDownload is worse (Score:3)
Smartdownload sends *everything*, irregardless of where it comes from.
Netscape *does* pay for Mozilla development (Score:3)
Most of the development on Mozilla was done by full-time employees of Netscape, working on Netscape's time. So yes, a lot of the money generated by the browser goes back to Mozilla.
Re:A point-by-point comparison is in order here... (Score:3)
(2) IE is much faster than anything else. I'm not interested in fantasy-land, broken browsers that don't work in the real world. You want a complete browsing experience, you need Java and Javascript and in some cases ActiveX if you're a Windows user. All those Gecko jobs just don't cut it as a real browser.
(3) IE55 on Win98SE is fine. It's as stable as any Windows 98 app by and large. It rocks on Win2k.
(4) IE's interface is what makes it a real winner. IE's bookmark management is fantastic -- I love having a hierachical bookmark directory. That they're all files in the filesystem actually works to your advantage -- I stick shortcuts in there to my home machine's favorites folder and we can share favorites in our workgroup.
Netscape's broken HTML file full of bookmarks is nasty.
(5) IE is available across all the Win32 platforms and the MacOSs as well as some UNIX platforms as well (AIX? Solaris? HPUX?) The only meaninful platforms its not on are Linux and FreeBSD.
(6) Security? Well, shit, I haven't lost anything due to my browser. I turn off all the stupid stuff for public browsing. You're more likely to end up at goatse.cx by mistake than get hacked via your browser.
Give me a break (Score:3)
Could I see a raise of hands of those that are happy that Netscape is still fighting Microsoft _at all_? How about a show of hands from those that are happy that Mozilla exists? Thanks. I thought there were some non-braindead among us still.
I'll bet it encourages other companies considering open sourcing things when they see us:
1) Scream for the code.
2) Receive the code.
3) Bitch about the code.
4) Bitch about the license.
5) Bitch about the company that gave the code.
6) Goto 3.
--
Netscape engineers . . . (Score:3)
next "ask slashdot": (Score:3)
I think it's really pathetic how most people don't take 2 seconds to really investigate anything, but would rather follow whatever bashing trend floats by them. There is a whole sub-cultural phenom. on "popular" bashing of products. Let's look at some examples:
Microsoft, the movie Titanic, Episode 1, Religion, Netscape, any other large corporation...
It's "fashionable" to bash those and many others...you're "hip" and "with it" if you can repeat the same 2 or 3 worn-out phrases that make you seem "in the know"
Pathetic.
[/rant]
sorry, but this is just plain stupid. i hate the "jump-on-the-bandwagon-bashers" because they make so much fucking noise and have so little to say...
What options do we have?? (Score:3)
My frustration comes from not having a feature-rich, yet fast, simple, and non-intrusive web browser. I'd tried all the IE's, Netscapes... Lynx, Opera...
But yesterday night I installed KDE [kde.org](I've been biased toward Gnome for the last year), and I was quite impressed with the Browser and with KDE in general! In fact, it's the closest thing to the browser I've been looking for! Cosmetically, it doesn't look like a rocket ship. It is rather plain. What do we get for it looking plain? It loads quickly . It reacts. It's reads HTML well, from what I've seen. Isn't that what we've been looking for? Here's a screenshot [kde.org] from the KDE screenshots pages.
I've tried mozilla and found it to be inspiring, yet disturbingly buggy. Nobody ever said it wasn't buggy, but it was my light at the end of the tunnel, and still can be. But right now it takes between 60 and 120 Megs of memory while running. How much debug code is in there?? It is debug code.... right?
Well, we do have options. Some of them are GOOD options, depending on whether we're running KDE. It won't surprise me if at some point someone puts out a distribution of Mozilla that is stripped down, quicker, and to the point when it finally hits stable.
In any case, there's my
rhadc
Re:Get serious! (Score:3)
He has no point whatsoever (Score:5)
Banner ads, shopping links, etc, etc. These are aimed at the user. This is really cool (tm) for the average joe blow that wants to buy something. As for the banner ads, maybe he's one of those people that just has a deep-seeded loathing of banner advertising. Really, I don't mind them. It's a good way to make money without actually *doing* anything and I understand that. They aren't overly intrusive, they just kinda chill at the top or the bottom.
Second, this guy really has no right to be pissed off at Netscape unless he's a member of the Mozilla project. You don't *pay* for Netscape, it's free (as in beer) software. I think the saying is "you get what you pay for."
Free (as in speech) software carries with it the ability for such conglomerates to come along and use it for pretty much whatever they want to. You can't be mad at them for doing this, because they are explicitly *allowed* to by the software creators.
I would be suprised if Netscape/AOL/Time Warning/Mirabilis/Nullsoft/Winamp/whatever *didn't* do something like this, but I'm not suprised that they did, nor do I think it's wrong, nor do I blame them for doing so.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
The commercial side (Score:3)
So it would be quite natural to see Netscape providing adds on its browser. Maybe they are too much for such a product, But that's the only way for them to keep afloat. Anyway they give the right to choose. They also gave ground to Mozilla's project, and this one is much less ad-loaded than Netscape.
Why it looks so ad-ictive in relation to IE? Well IE is a system embedded into a OS called Windows, upon which Microsoft gets some envious fees. Even from people who don't use it. And, besides, Microsoft has a much larger market in control. So it does not need to rape your brains with a menu carrying 40 ads right-tight into your eyes and calling you to "buy... Buy... BUY!!!!" having its logo in every corner. Microsoft can be more stealth and more promiscuous then Netscape/AOL because its interest is even on the stock value of many companies and not on the direct sell of the product.
Any way, if this bores you, which is understandable, don't forget that there is Mozilla, Konqueror, Lynx, Links, and a few others that have nothing to do with selling you snake oil. However most of the breath only on the *NIX. That is the cost of freedom.
Re:It wouldn't bug me if (Score:3)
Haven't tried the 6.0 flavor yet, but the 4.7x bunch just absolutely will not let you take the preformated sections out of your bookmark file.
Really? I'm running Communicator 4.73 (latest version for PPC Linux), and I have no Netscape- or AOL-related crap in my bookmarks.html. Unless you're counting the ``Personal Toolbar Folder'', which contains the links that appear in my toolbar, or the ``New Bookmarks'' folder, where new bookmarks go. If I wanted, I could select any folder to store new bookmarks, to store toolbar bookmarks, or to appear as the bookmarks menu. I'd be surprised if that had changed.
bookmarks.html is just a text file. If you don't like the stuff that's in it, and you can't delete things from within the bookmark editor, just quit Netscape, make a backup copy of bookmarks.html, and hack on it in a text editor. When you're happy with it, restart Netscape and see how it works -- you may need to reset some or all of the ``special'' folders. The worst that can happen is that you'll break something and have to go back to your original (and try deleting unwanted stuff again).
NullSoft Can Fix it (Score:3)