Pro-Mozilla vs. Anti-Mozilla (i.e. Ed... )

What are your feelings concerning Mozilla?

  • YAY!: Like it. I advocate Mozilla and its various incarnations (Mozilla Carbon, Chimera, Mach-o, etc

  • EH: Neutral. Take it or leave it. So AOL/Netscape uses it. So what?

  • BOO!: Don't like it. Think AOL is using programmers for free. or "I think AOL is Evil"

Results are only viewable after voting.
personally, as long as it's DOM compliant to the highest degree, and a light RAM user... I could care less if it was coded by your grandmother.

I just want a good browswer finally on OS X.
 
I am not Anti-Mozilla.

Mozilla is one of the few products where the Open Source idea is used by a big company. But well, I am a fan of the Open Source community, and while developing for AOL, at the same time, they develop this product for EVERYONE! It is open source! If Microsoft wants to use it, they can! As long as it remains open source. And if they fund the development, like AOL, I have no problem with them using it "closed" source. I am neither a fan of Microsoft or AOL/Netscape, nor am I a fan of the race for "domination" of the browser market these companies do.
Do I stop using MySQL only because three of the programmers of MySQL at the same time are programmer of Microsoft SQL Server? No.
Do I stop using DivX 4 and soon DivX 5 only because the development on these open source codecs also helped Microsoft creating their new codec AND bringing their MPEG 4 codec (developed together with the Motion picture expert group and now sold to Frauenhofer) - WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN QUICKTIME 6 - to what it is now? No.
Every product somehow influences other products. If it is not an open source product, the idea will be copied. The GUI from MacOS in the past was copied by Microsoft! Somehow you can say that the Mac users who made the idea of a GUI so revolutionary and successful "somehow" helped Microsoft to copy it. Without the success of Java on the internet, Microsoft wouldn't dare creating their new .Net-architecture.
Ideas are copied every day, and only successful ideas. And who makes them successful? We, the end users.
The only difference between this and the open source community is, that in the open source community, this "copying" is easier and is what drives the open source community. As long as the "copied" and improved product is still open source or still supports the open source community, why not?
The render engine of Netscape - as long as it is based on Mozilla - will be open source! I know that Ed is angry about the fact that the open source community somehow does the work for Netscape/AOL, but as a true fan of this community, I see this as the beginning of what everybody in the community wanted!

It's sad that a company like AOL is one of the supporters of the consumer Open Source product market, but well...it has to start somewhere...most technologies are in first place developed for the bad bad army with their bad bad wars...ok, the last statement was a joke ;)
 
I only have one beef with AOL's involvement in the whole Mozilla project. The beef is simple: AOL (outside of the Netscape brand) isn't using it! Mozilla is one hell of a browser, and it isn't even done yet, but AOL still uses IE as the browser in it's software.

I understood why they did it originally. They had to have a bargaining chip to get on the MS desktop. But now that the contract has expired, and the DOJ has opened up the MS desktop to 3rd party vendors, I don't see why AOL doesn't start using their crown jewels.

Anyway, the Mozilla engine is great. I've been using Mozilla as my primary browser since the 0.9.8 release. While not perfect, it is currently the best of breed on OS X.

Here's a list of my grievances with it:
1) Needs further OS X optimization. Rendering is good, but window resize, menu scrolls, etc could be better.
2) Needs a good Aqua skin. The "Classic" skin has adopted some Aqua-ness, but it's but ugly. I stick with the Modern theme, which is fine. But I'd like to see a straight up Aqua skin.
3) Improved bookmark management. This is one area where both IE and OW have Mozilla beat.
4) And finally, I'd like to see more progress on the MRJ plugin. It's functional now, but could stand some serious work.
 
I'm sorry Ed, but I sit here watching MSN take over the largest dial-up service in my area and have clients (both Mac and Windows based) asking me for an alternative solution, I find it hard to consider AOL the Bad Guys, no matter how you try and spin it. This seems to be a very personal issue for you so I'll limit this to this one post (seeing as I have avoided the issue all together up to now anyway).

Browsers and the Internet

My current computer situation leaves me working with three browsers. Netscape for Solaris, Irix, and Mac OS (A/UX to Mac OS 9.2), OmniWeb for Rhapsody and Mac OS X, and Internet Explorer for sites that don't display correctly in anything else in Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. The question should be why do I have to use IE at all? And the answer, Microsoft has gotten web developers to use their version of HTML (aka MSHTML) in stead of HTML 4. And then there are sites I can't access at all because web developers are using Java apps(which should be completely cross platform) that look for a Windows Registry. Originally the Internet was a platform independent connection for everyone who could get access, but now Microsoft is worked very hard to make it a Windows only environment. AOL/Netscape at least include Macintosh for the most part, and Netscape is one of the only browsers for non-Windows/non-Macintosh systems.

Given that, how could anyone compare what Microsoft is doing to AOL/Netscape? Microsoft is working to remove choice from people, and many of the choices they want to see removed are ones I use. AOL is not trying to take over anything, or make anything that was originally open closed to all who don't use their products. Further, AOL/Netscape is not trying to shut out all other browsers from the internet (or don't you remember MSN turning away Opera browsers for no other reason than them identifying them selves as an Opera browser).

I currently use AOL for two reasons: (1) no DSL in my area and (2) it lets me give internet access to four other people who would not have it other wise. What features do I personally use AOL for? Currently I only use the TCP/IP connection. That is right, I sign on, hide AOL, and go about my business on the internet. Do I care that AOL 7 for Windows has more features than AOL 5 for Macintosh? No, because I don't use any other part of AOL other than the connection (and giving others a connection). Do I care that AOL uses IE as a browser engine rather than Netscape? No, because AOL as a browser/e-mail client sucks anyway.

My thoughts on AOL/Netscape: Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
 
Let's face it: Right now there is *ONE* competitor to Mozilla that lets you view all pages at a decent speed, and its name is Microsoft Internet Explorer. I don't blame ANYONE to ditch IE for Mozilla, because I think it's politically correct.

:)

As soon as OmniWeb, iCab or Opera do their jobs better than the biggies, I think we're really free to choose. Right now I try to surf in OW whenever I can and only switch to IE if I have to. I'll try Chimera again when it's grown up a bit.

But what you, Ed, basically say, is to choose IE over Mozilla, and I can't agree to that. If you were to say: Use OW instead of everything else, I could understand. But you can't do that because OW still has a way to go.

So right now: Mozilla is the only decent choice besides IE. Go figure: Do you want to feed the Beast or the Beast?
 
ok, my brain still doesn't have all the blood back from manually laboring in the yard, but i think i need to correct Fryke's misconception right away. the rest i will come back to.

ie instead of netrape? never did i say that. read my signiture - "using icab whenever i can". I also play around with OW and Opera from time to time, but so far icab does the best overall job for me. I still don't understand why more people aren't using it unless all those preferences are just too intimidating.

but i think you got the Beast or the Beast part right. of course i am not totally convinced they are not the same Beast. At the least they are kissing cousins.

and what is the number one thing i dislike about Apple? Their part in perpetuating the myth that you ought to have ie or netrape since you need one of them to work your itools account. Bah!!
 
here's are my philosophys...

if it's open source, it should be made better, since it's linking the brains of thousands of developers...

although... my true philosophy is that if it works great without screwing up, i'll use it...

plus it's gotta look good... that's the reason i don't use Netscape/Mozilla... the pages look like shit... and so does the browser... that's why I use IE... it just works...
 
Well, I haven't actually read signatures since the American thread, Ed. ;)

Of course, if iCab serves you well, that's a choice you can make. It's still too butt ugly for me, and I think they should finally charge some money and add a designer to their company. (I'm no big fans of skins, either, I think it's the company's job to adhere to the Apple HI guidelines if they're making software for Mac only.)

But the true thing is that most people just don't really care whether MS and Mozilla are a deal with the devil(s): They want the browser that suits their needs best, and for most people iCab, OW and co. can't be that just yet. They've come a long way, and I strongly believe they're going to have their time. I'm so glad that browser wars are alive and well on this platform (it wasn't on OS 9), while they're certainly not on Windows, where IE is simply the best and fastest browser (for whatever reasons), although it might not be the most secure one.
 
RacerX - i hope you will at least respond to my response. You should know i have great respect for you and i feel that has always been returned. (i know admitting you use aol must have been tough considering this crowd and me in particular. perhaps you can teach me to hid aol without it eating up all the memory on an older pc so that I can use a real browser successfully when visiting home once a year)

as posted by my friend RacerX
Further, AOL/Netscape is not trying to shut out all other browsers from the internet (or don't you remember MSN turning away Opera browsers for no other reason than them identifying them selves as an Opera browser).
Click to expand...

now a quote i just got from attempting to access mynetscape.com with opera identified as opera
Invalid Browser Configuration
You have tried to access a feature which is not available for your current browser configuration.
To use this feature, you must have:

JavaScript enabled in your Preferences, and

A Microsoft Windows based browser that is Netscape Navigator 4.0 or newer, or Internet Explorer 4.0 or newer.

An Apple Macintosh based browser that is Internet Explorer 5.0 or newer.
Click to expand...

opera and omniweb do fine as long as you id them as one of those 2 browsers. omniweb loads the page all screwy if you id as omniweb. icab loads the page screwy when id'd as one of those 2 and gets the invalid page if id'd as icab.

this seems like blocking to me.

now for my friend Ulrik -
I am not really angry that the open source community does the work for aol/netrape. as long as they know that is what they are doing. Perhaps because i feel like a one man army over the core of this issue, it seems to have escalated way beyond my true intent - which is to be sure that anyone who wanders in here is aware of the relationship that exists and to make their choice to use it after having that knowledge. all i have ever objected to is that people here post links to mozilla without giving a clue as to what that connection is. since my first such post, i have spent considerable time and effort explaining why the connection bothers me. While the core of site members are quite astute and do what they do knowingly, there are some who don't. and there are always site visitors whom i would guess contain some people who aren't aware.

I used to love netscape and mozilla before aol bought them out. I even stuck with them for quite sometime. But somewhere along the way, probably during my umpteenth system crash while reporting a browser crash, i realized that i was just sacrificing for aol's good. the connection was enough for me to stop using mozilla regularly and eventually to remove it from my computer.

so if you guys use it and know what the implications are, then that is fine with me. It doesn't change my opinion over what good people you are and how much i like you. i hope it would never come to that. If it did, i wouldn't be able to speak to my family or most any of my friends.

and fryke - what is ugly about icab? it looks just like all the other browsers to me except for the silly taxi icon?

enough for this post. more later i guess.;)
 
hmm... you did it. i just downloaded a newer build of iCab to testdrive it again. maybe for the last time. these are my results:

- Fancy tableborders on ikonboard pages (ugly)
- Icons look bad, must replace them with every build (ugly)
- Throbber looks bad, must replace it with every build (ugly)
- Weirdo error: When put in the same folder as OmniWeb, iCab's application name is OmniWeb. (?!)

Other than that, iCab has come a long way. I actually like it and surf with it right now.

Laters. ;)
 
fryke - i don't know what you mean by the fancy tableborders. and my icon set changes have remained thru updates. there are a huge number of them and some actually speed it up. go to downloads and then look in the frames menu again to find them. yea, the cab is ugly. however i don't stare at it. it can also be replaced. also getting the little flesh colored hand cursor is nice.
and be sure to uncheck css2 since it can't do it anyway. that also speeds it up and helps rendering.

enjoy.:)
 
Ed,

I have said before that Netscape (before it was part of AOL) was the first to fire the shot in the HTML code wars (not Microsoft, which just did a better job later). The fact that any one uses non-w3c compliant HTML (v4.0) for any site (specially large public portals) is sad to say the least. And I was unaware that MyNetscape had those types of controls... but it also sounds like iCab doesn't display the pages correctly even identified as another browser (part of the reason for having such a warning, which was not the case in the Opera/MSN case were Microsoft said publicly that Opera was not able to display HTML 4 correctly... an out right lie if there ever was one). The problem is that Microsoft is going a giant step further by trying to replace the TCP/IP standard with it's own proprietary one to fix the computer virus problem (which actually is a Windows virus problem to begin with).

As for your problems with the AOL program itself, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I have some of the longest uptime of anyone I know (I reached 91 days on a Quadra 950 that was used for only accessing the internet via AOL, and 2 weeks on my current system running in Mac OS 9.2 and accessing the internet once or twice a day with AOL) and almost none of my crashes in the last year have had anything to do with AOL (most were while playing Rogue Spear for more than a couple hours at a time). And considering the fact that once signed on, I don't use AOL for anything else, I have had times were I have been online for up to 6 hours (usually because I had forgotten to sign off). Given that, I have no complaints with AOL (but again I don't use it for any other reason than to create a TCP/IP connection with the internet).

That having been said, lets look at a statement that is more than a little troubling to me that you made somewhere else:

sadly said by my friend Ed
This is perhaps one of the most troubling statements for me. and it has nothing to do with Chimera or Mozilla or any specific thing. It has to do with "me first". The truth is that most of us are pretty unaware of how our actions effect or affect others. We just do whatever provides immediate satisfaction. We want life to be better for us - screw everybody else. If they weren't so stupid they wouldn't be in the mess they're in. What matters is that i have the best of everything. So at what point will you start to pay attention to how your actions effect the world? Before or after the last tree in the rainforests has been chopped down?

What i want to know, is when did browsers become so all important to anyone's life that it doesn't matter what kind of corruption is behind them, only that they can set new track records at the Daytona 500? If evil personified walked up to you and said they would give you the best browser ever made and all they wanted was the life of someone close to you, would that be a deal you would take?
Click to expand...

Any argument that requires such an extreme comparison must not truly be a strong one. The evil that you have applied to AOL/Netscape seems far less than the one I have pointed out with Microsoft... and yet I have not felt the need to compare my argument with scarifying someone's life or destruction of the rainforest. Personally, the controls I would like to see in place would be applied evenly for everyone (controlling Microsoft doesn't stop some other company or interest group from trying the same thing later on).

What you are advocating is disconnection, which in reality takes you out of a position in which to effect the course of events. Only the active user base of any given system can make effective changes (just like Windows trolls shouting at Apple, Apple only listens to it's customer base... your current AOL position is a very week one for effective change in that system).

And even more troubling for me, is seeing you warring hatred and venom is such a manner. I dislike Microsoft... strongly, but don't seem to feel the depth of emotion that you seem to be displaying in this one area. Removing your name from these post, I could hardly identify the writer as you. And remember what you said in another area about giving control to others in an argument, you have done just that with this subject.
 
ok, i'm about ready for a nervous breakdown over this whole issue.:rolleyes:

it has gotten way out of hand and i have perpetuated the process of it doing so.

but first RacerX, and anyone else that sees my post in the same light, let me express part of my confusion. You say i am spreading hatred and venom. But i am not sure i am even capable of real hatred. the post you quoted was written in a very calm and not enflamed state of mind. I wasn't attempting to spew venom. i know i can when i want to, but i was really just trying to do what others are always trying to do to me - see where solrac draws his lines.

There are corporations that are actively involved in the destruction of the rain forests. I am a little out of date on who the big offenders are these days but i know some of the minor players have stopped due to economic pressures from consumers in the form of boycotts. I gave up several of my favorite products to do my part in boycotting the economic machinary that once fueled apartheid. and the only one i have gone back to is Aim toothpaste. and i occasionally eat Mrs. Butterworth's syrup.

economic pressures do work. spending or not spending one's money is casting a vote for a way of life. not all companies spend their profits for the good of the overall picture. Just because one is the worst does not make the next worse into good. so let us all stop using microsoft as a reason that aol is ok. Being the second biggest bully is not alright.

In this case i am looking out for me and countless other mac owners. It would take me countless hours to run down all the 'less than right' things that aol does that upset me and many others. I still can't believe that in a community this large, there are only two of us that oppose aol. hell, i know aol users that think aol sucks. which brings me to a question? Is one reason most people don't understand because they have never been thru the aol experience? I know this is not the case with you RacerX, but i wonder how many people are just clueless as to how aol works. I mean BigHairyDog, who declared a while back that he uses ie because everybody else does, finally had the sense to ask how ie and aol were making money by his using their free browsers.

I am simply amazed at how many people here don't care about the politics behind a company. all they care about is whether it works for them or not. and i have tried pointing out realistic examples many times to only be told time and again that they don't understand where i am coming from. so i raise the bar a little on the comparison. and they still don't get it. so i search for possible reasons that they don't get it. and i search, and i search, and i....

hell, i'm not even trying to change those people's minds who are set in their ways about it. Only an event that touches them and harms them will probably ever do that. but perhaps i have planted enough of a seed that they will have a first clue what to do when that day comes.

I also think this discussion has been spread out over so many threads and with so many different voices popping in that it has become almost impossible for me to respond. i keep thinking i need to respond in new ways when maybe the person never read my original response to their question to begin with.

at any rate, i feel misunderstood.

as for people like yourself who use aol, i have been seen advocating that they use mozilla. they should be working to make what they support into a better product. I absolutly agree that some of the most effective changes come from within. I could go on for hours about this unusual style of radicalism and its implications but since i don't know anyone who is a position of enough power at netscape/aol, i don' t think much can be done that way. Users are only going to effect the product at best. Stock holders have somewhat more influence but not much. Corporate bigwigs are going to have the final say. and what does a ceo care about from the users - how much money they are providing. so sometimes the way to influence the big guys is not to fight for changes within, but remove your money from supporting the machine. sometimes they only want to know why you aren't with them, rather than why you are. customers are sold. ex customers are bad business.

i am sure there is more to say, but once more i grow tired and need a break. see ya at herve's.:)
 
Does it matter to anyone that IE actually is a better browser than Netscape?

No, think about this. Yes, they have access to APIs, yes they use MSHTML - but let's face facts.

Opera is better and faster on PCs but it's pay-ware/adware and designed to run on systems that have a 'decent' browser already on the OS.

Netscape is free but since version 4.0, it's been a pain in my side. It's lost my email boxes completely in both 4.0 & in 6.0 more times than I can count. When 6.0 came out on the market it screwed up my machine so bad I had to reformat. Mozilla *might* be better but I doubt it.

As much as we don't want MS to have a stranglehold on the browser (as much as we don't want them to have a stranglehold on anything) there's not that much alternative out there - and this is even more true on the PC than the Mac.

Brian.
 
boyko - welcome to the world of macs! (or at least you'll be one of us real soon):)

I think you will find that the simplicity of your argument has long ago been covered. it is part of what i referred to as being asked the same questions over and over. If you would really like a reply to your post, why not do a search of the site for 'browser' and then try again after you have read them?

I think you will find there are more alternatives than ie once you come over from the dark side. for one thing, with osx, we can actually have 2 browsers up and running at once. so we can use an alteranate browser till we come to that occasional assnine site that requires exploiter or netrape and instantly switch over, see what we gotta see and move on in the other browser. of course i know that is a lot of work for some people and those 30 secs a day wasted switching browsers could be put to better use;) :rolleyes:
 
This thread is nothing more than a personal attack on one of my favorite members - Ed. If you guys seriously think you will change his mind on any issue as close to his heart as the browser war, you are seriously mistaken.

Furthermore, this type of character deflimation has no business being in 'hot topics'. Ed's opinion of the browser war, netscape, mozilla, aol, and microsoft is his own. And is formed, dare I say, *beyond* technical reasons.

I suggest this thread be locked, moved, or simply deleted. Its embarrasing. (almost as bad as my spelling.... )

Ed, you rock for taking all this crap and staying on the board. But enough is enough.

Lets quit this stupid battle, and enjoy a next generation OS together.
 
You guys, you have no idea how sorry I am that I created this frickin' thing. I originally posted this hoping nobody would reply... rather, there would just be voting on this. I intended it to be a poll, and only that- a poll. (Should have made myself more clear) I looked for an option as to make it so that there were no replies, just polling, but since there was none, I just crossed my fingers.

Ed, I'm sorry that my curiosity about the browser wars has lead to what seems to be a personal attack on you. This is definitely NOT what I intended, and now that I see that posting anything about browsers will eventually lead to such hatred, I'm keeping my big mouth shut.

To the moderator: Definitely close this thread. Move it to the "how to" section and title it "How to: start a personal attack on one of the best board members and leave everybody in general pretty sour." Or, just delete it. I think I'd prefer that.

Plus, if everybody insists on attacking people for their browser choice, you better continue your "witch hunt"... the poll says there are THREE "BOO" votes, so it's not just Ed.

Everybody, click your favourite browser in the dock, just keep your mouth shut and don't let it get personal.

This is not what I wanted.

I'm sorry, Ed.
 
Kilowatt and adambyte - I think you are reading more into this particular thread than you should.
RacerX is a very good friend of mine. There are no hard feelings between us over this issue. His words may have sounded a bit harsh, but there is some element of truth in them. He tends to get a bit dramatic in a very logical way sometimes. it can be scary and intimidating. i know, i have stood beside him swatting at trolls on a few occassions. I would consider him one of the most knowledgable contributers on the board and one of my favorite members.
I do not want this thread closed. In fact my last response to Boyko, while serious, was timed to bump the thread back up to get attention again. I didn't want the last thread closed. If you see me start calling my fellow site members names, then please close a thread before i look like a fool. otherwise, i am a grown man and can take care of myself, thank you.
I have at no point felt anything bad about anyone involved in this debate. My feelings about the corporations involved is another matter.

and i will continue to believe in the right of freedom of expression, so long as that expression is not a threat of assault or other harm.:)

but thanks for sticking up for me guys - it was a wonderful thing to wake up to (insert really sincere smile here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top