comment on journal entry: spread firefox campaign
:-
On the other hand....
I think that it was far less malicious than you think, Chris. Most people who have adopted Firefox so far have done so out of necessity (if they run Linux it really is now almost the standard and included in many distros), recommendation (from open-source-aware friends, security sites, etc) or requirement (some businesses have removed IE due to the widely touted security concerns).
Most people falling into those categories are not particularly marketing-savvy, so I think that the primary purpose of the GetFirefox campaign was to prompt people to say how they felt about the browser -- something they might not have thought to do. As Alistair commented, I doubt if they thought it was shit they would have voted positively on CNET!
What is it exactly that you object to so much re Firefox? It seems to upset you greatly! [Meri] [reply] -
Some clarification
Meri and Alistair,
Firstly I don't hate Firefox. For people who can't use IE or Safari it's a very good choice of browser.
What concerns me is that the few people brave enough to make criticisms about it are torn to shreds. As zdnet's John Carroll commented, it's politically incorrect in the extreme to criticise anything that's branded with the 'open-source' moniker. What really riles me is the zealous advocacy that Mozilla have stirred up around the browser. I've seen people describing XP SP2 as a "threat," (it makes Firefox less marketable) and FUD'ing about it. I've seen people from Mozilla publish shameless lies about IE when drawing comparisons with Firefox. I've seen the anti-trust case and security issues about IE twisted and mis-represented. I've seen personal attacks on IE developers. I've seen the IE article on Wikipedia used as one big negative statement about IE (there are Mozilla advocates swarming (e.g.) all over it). For goodness sake, I've even seen an advocate claim that webpage problems due to server outages are reduced when using Firefox.
And the thing about CNET is that whichever way you look at it, it was organised ballot stuffing. If anyone made a piece of software that had a fanbase (as much software does), and then provided them all with a link where they could vote and push the software to the top of a 'best software' list I'm sure they would do. Would this be mis-representing the browser's true impact? Yes. The fact is, really talented open-sourcists don't work for money - they instead work for notoriety. Two Mozilla developers (including the lead) have just been employed by Google because of their much publicised success with Firefox. Was it in their best interests to market Firefox? Of course it was. Opera, on the other hand, which appears to be technically superior to Firefox in many ways, doesn't get a look-in.
Looking at the Windows platform alone, it's questionable whether Firefox is a better browser than IE. In my experience (and that of many others I have seen online), it is slower and less robust than IE. It is likely to be equally prone to hackers, inevitably linked to it's scale of adoption. It chokes on more websites than IE. It doesn't natively support ActiveX (cynics will claim this is a good thing, the rest of us will just be irritated at the deficiency). It's JavaScript interpreter has differences with IE, for which many sites are developed. It is slow at rendering heavily graphical sites due to use of the aging GIMP toolkit. It's popup blocker is overly aggressive, blocking user-initiated popups on GMail, for example.
Anyway, the bottom line is that my beef is with the advocacy. It clouds neutrality - it deliberately encourages anti-MS sentiment, and worst of all, it's all sponsored by bitter ex-Netscape Mozilla. [Chris Beach] [reply] -
Technical corrections
Couple of technical things I just wanted to point out:
I don\'t think Firefox on Windows uses the \"aging GIMP toolkit\" (which is constantly updated by the way, so I\'m not sure how the word aging applies) and if it does it uses it simply to render parts of the user interface not web pages.
Safari doesn\'t support ActiveX either, and I can\'t think of a single site that this stops me from using. Right now to be honest, aside from windowsupdate.microsoft.com I can\'t think of a single site that uses ActiveX.
The same goes for your \"chokes on more websites\". The rendering engine at the heart of Safari is arguably less capable than the one at the heart of Firefox, and I can\'t think of any sites that I can\'t visit in Safari, so...
[Alistair McMillan] [reply] -
yup
The GTK was ported to Windows, and is hardly at the cutting edge of UI technology (think Avalon / OS X). I know for a fact it is used to render GIF's in Firefox. I corresponded with Secunia regarding the fact that they hadn't listed a buffer overrun vulnerability with GIF rendering in Firefox. They confirmed that the bug in GTK does affect Firefox, although it will only be listed on the GTK product page.
Safari doesn't support ActiveX, which is a pity. I know several sites that use it including our very own BBC (the live Radio player)
As for "choking on websites" I'm talking about cack-handed rendering - which is a problem both in Safari and Firefox.
Anyway, those three issues really weren't the main thrust of my comment. I assume you don't take issue with the rest? [Chris Beach] [reply] -
Avalon???
Yeah GTK has a Windows port. That doesn\'t mean Firefox uses it. If it does then why don\'t the build instructions list it? http://www.mozilla.org/build/win32.html I\'m pretty sure it is only a dependency on Linux.
BTW Avalon? Firefox should use a technology that isn\'t even out of alpha yet?
BBC and ActiveX? How do I manage to watch Real videos on the BBC website from Safari if they use ActiveX? I\'ve never used the Radio player, until this very moment. Works for me. I know you recently purchased a Mac, so you must know this works.
\"cack-handed rendering\"? Honestly, and I\'m not being a Safari advocate here, I seriously can\'t think of a single site I have a problem with. I have other browsers installed on my Macs (including Firefox) but I never use them, except when I\'m curious to test a feature specific to one browser.
The main thrust of your article: I think you exaggerate the problem. I doubt anyone takes the extremists (for example, the SP2 == evil people) seriously. And you yourself are as guilty as anyone of misrepresenting the issues (for example, the anti-trust case). [Alistair McMillan] [reply] -
err..
I never said Firefox should use Avalon, I merely stated it as an example of a cutting edge UI library.
As for GTK, Secunia themselves confirmed that Firefox uses GTK in an email to me.
Regarding BBC radio, I remember this certainly used ActiveX because ActiveX was locked down to a whitelist at my old work, and the Radio player stopped working because of this. You are right, though, the player does work in Safari - browser-detect maybe. At the investment bank I worked in last year, ActiveX was used throughout the intranet and client servicing website.
As for the anti-SP2 extremists - the problem is that they are everywhere, not just on Slashdot. It's very much en-vogue to knock MS, and criticise everything that they produce.
Cack-handed rendering: I've been to a couple of sites today: http://www.ukwindsurfing.com/events/ (menu items crushed up)
http://www.odeon.co.uk/ (Click "enter" and you get nothing but a background)
Also, do you find that Safari always renders text too small? I have a 12 inch screen on my iBook so it's esp obvious on my Mac.
[Chris Beach] [reply] -
Why am I not asleep? It's almost five in the morning.
Are you sure Secunia weren't just talking about the Linux version of Firefox? I'm almost 100% certain that GTK isn't used in the Windows or Mac versions. Aside from which like I said, GTK is updated constantly.
I think Safari just supports good old NPAPI style plugins. And the least said about bank computer systems the better.
About Microsoft and criticising everything they produce... you personally plan to reverse that trend? By yourself? ... I'm speechless.
About the Odeon. You're right, I forgot that one. Probably because they opened a giant UGC here a few years back. :)
I've not noticed a problem with Safari and text size. I used to have a 12" iBook and I don't remember having any particular problem reading pages (and my eyesight was actually quite bad then). The 15" Powerbook I now use most of the time, has a screen that isn't much taller, and I know I don't have a problem there/here. [Alistair McMillan] [reply] -
I should be asleep too. I have a final-year degree exam on Monday!
uhhh.. I'm tired!
Secunia may have been talking about the Linux version, I guess I can't be sure in all honesty.
I don't plan to personally reverse the anti-MS trend. It's nice to have a central location (eg this site) for counter-arguments though. It means that when people search for debate on the issues they don't have to wade through the endless reams of mindless kiddie 'I love Firefox WOOT!' blogs. My pagerank is higher.
By the way, I think our edit-warring on Wikipedia will be our downfall. We ought to discuss Star Trek or something instead, in a civilised fashion - it's something a bit more positive that we have in common! :-)
Goodnight [Chris Beach] [reply]
[view more replies on journal entry spread firefox campaign]