Firefox? Opera? (anything but IE) - Page 2 - HTML Forums

Josh · 09-01-2004, 07:57 PM

Like he said, firefox is free.

When I meant netscape and firefox are basically the same, I mean that their rendering engine is the same. They are both gecko browsers. Other than that there are none of the same features.

Juparis · 09-01-2004, 09:15 PM

Ah, I see now... kind of...

What's a gecko browser? Sounds funky

Josh · 09-01-2004, 09:16 PM

It's the engine used for the browser.

Horus_Kol · 09-02-2004, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Putts
I would rather pay $10 for a browser like Firefox than download one for free - that way someone else is actually getting some of that market.

Why do they have to charge to be recognised as part of the "market".

It should be based on number of users only - and Firefox is increasing this daily.

afterburn · 09-02-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joe2kiss
lets not forget the vunerability for many harmful programs/executables that are on some websites

Less flexiblity!!!

Also note that the last issue was also an issue in Mozilla!

Josh · 09-02-2004, 05:23 PM

Less flexibility?

Yes, it was an issue, and they fixed it.

Now you also must realize this, mozilla isn't even a full version yet. It's still in the 0.9's. Not even a full 1.0

They're trying to find bugs, by doing this it will make it more secure in future versions.

nilsmo · 09-02-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by putts

Eveyone seems to be on this open source kick, when it's not really that great a reason.

What does using Open Source do for the industry? Nothing really. Until a company starts building their share of the industry, there's still no real threat to Microsoft.

I would rather pay $10 for a browser like Firefox than download one for free - that way someone else is actually getting some of that market.

nilsmo · 09-02-2004, 05:48 PM

The advances in all of the arts and sciences, indeed the sum total of human knowledge, is the result of the open sharing of ideas, theories, studies and research. Yet throughout many systems, the software in use on computers is closed and locked.
That is why open-source software is better than costly software made with corrupt, greedy, and humongous companies.
Freedom is more important than free of price.

putts · 09-02-2004, 10:16 PM

yes, but sharing how to brush life into trees doesn't cause anyone physical or financial harm.

But, having software open-sourced does lead to such ends. Some pieces of software NEED to be locked down and, in turn, those programs need to run on Operating Systems that are locked down.

Internet Browsers aren't as big a deal, but it's not really a main selling point either.

How many people using Firefox actually use it to all the "advantages" of Open-source software? Prolly not a high percentage.

Horus, what I meant was that the browser may be getting its "share" of the market, but Mozilla (or whatever company owns them) is not gaining on M$ on a corporate level which means M$ continues to have too much sway and doesn't show any signs of slipping.

Horus_Kol · 09-03-2004, 02:35 AM

yes, but ultimately we will see things going the way users want it.

Dell and Unisys, once main stalwarts of Microsoft OS, are now building PC's with pre-installed Linux Distro's.

Microsoft may have more money - but it's the market that ultimately determines what should be available.

Even the big corporates seem to agree that Open-Source is the way to go.

Novell are determined to open-source anything with SUSE on it, for start.
IBM are getting into open-source big time.

Even ID Software have released open-source versions of their older games.
Apparently, Half-Life 2 will be an open-source release when Valve finally get it on the shelves.

liquidfury · 09-03-2004, 10:21 AM

hey people are u sure that firefox is that good, cus it doesnt support flash that much n css2 that much as well....??? so why firefox!!! its like some people saying apple is better than windows kinda thing i guess!!!

Horus_Kol · 09-03-2004, 10:40 AM

it does so support Flash - you just need the plug-in, like you do with IE and any other browser.

Juparis · 09-03-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josh
Now you also must realize this, mozilla isn't even a full version yet. It's still in the 0.9's. Not even a full 1.0

Hmm... After hearing that, I'd much rather stay with Internet Explorer. It may not be the best, but it's well past 1.0, and most websites are designed for it anyway...

I haven't anything supporting Opera over the others. Hmm...

Horus_Kol · 09-04-2004, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juparis
I'd much rather stay with Internet Explorer.

just don't use it for anything needing your credit card details.
There is an unplugged hole in IE where people could skim your info as you type/send it.

This is why the American DOHS has recommended using a non-M$ broswer.

afterburn · 09-04-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josh
Less flexibility?

Yes, it was an issue, and they fixed it.

Now you also must realize this, mozilla isn't even a full version yet. It's still in the 0.9's. Not even a full 1.0

They're trying to find bugs, by doing this it will make it more secure in future versions.

And that makes it what an unusable for real users in general? that arguement is a dead end. Like saying just because IE is at 6+ then it should have no bugs. Software all has bugs. Just because IE has activeX and most people thing that its a bug, but its mostly by design most of the stuff is like it is. Over the years they have tightened up some lose ends like all software. The biggest issue with IE is that there is not just 2 interfaces to hook into it with. ActiveX,COM,COM+,DCOM,Java,Javascript,VBScript,C and many others. And the arguement of MS not trying to find bugs is bogus.