Mozilla suggestions (since someone locked the other thread)

[Pace]

Enough said? Answer my What's wrong with Microsoft having the power to make their product last, and improve on it? They have the cash reserves to make IE free, and I see no problem with them doing it.

P.

[Jessterw]

Ok let's not get into the whole Microsoft is bad and wants world domination argument... it's entirely blah.

It's amusing though that Microsoft is bad for releasing free software to undermine the competition and yet that's exactly what alot of open source software does (hell they even admit it). Ah well.

My point is that Microsoft is no longer trying to divide the Internet as they and Netscape once were. I also fully understand the reasons behind the existance of the W3C, just ask Pace, I'm one of the biggest web standards evangelists there is (unless of course you count some of the bigger names like Jeffrey Zeldman and Eric Myers, I'm just not famous like them yet ).

[leech]

Originally posted by Pace
Enough said? Answer my What's wrong with Microsoft having the power to make their product last, and improve on it? They have the cash reserves to make IE free, and I see no problem with them doing it.

P.

Because, in my not so humble opinion, no matter how much they try to improve their products, they'll always suck for the the simple reason that ONLY they can improve it. Open sourced projects have a lot less security issues for the very reason that they are open. And besides, there IS a problem with IE being free. Because they are the standard operating system, they pretty much make the average computer user use IE. And that is against what the DOJ has said, and yet they still haven't complied. Even now with SP1 they're finally doing what they should have been doing all along.

Leech

[leech]

Originally posted by Jesterzwild
Ok let's not get into the whole Microsoft is bad and wants world domination argument... it's entirely blah.

It's amusing though that Microsoft is bad for releasing free software to undermine the competition and yet that's exactly what alot of open source software does (hell they even admit it). Ah well.

My point is that Microsoft is no longer trying to divide the Internet as they and Netscape once were. I also fully understand the reasons behind the existance of the W3C, just ask Pace, I'm one of the biggest web standards evangelists there is (unless of course you count some of the bigger names like Jeffrey Zeldman and Eric Myers, I'm just not famous like them yet ).

Yeah, but open source is truly free, whereas with IE you have a EULA and everything. Well, you do with OSS, but you have the source you can play with. And yes, from what I've read some place (I'll have to dig to see if I can find it again) They ARE going to try to make some new standards (if I recall correctly, they were looking towards trying to oust TCP/IP) so that they more or less own the internet. You think Palladium or Longhorn or whatever else they have up their sleeve doesn't sound like a pull for domination?

That's good, you should be on my side more than, if you're all for the web standards, that's what this whole arguement is about. IE6 just doesn't do everything that the W3C has set forth as the spec. Mozilla doesn't either, but it still tries real hard. And When mozilla doesn't match the W3C then you can go in and program it yourself, if you're feeling so inclined. That's the beauty of OSS.

Leech

[albatorsk]

And let's not forget, many times with OSS, the end user does NOT have to agree to the license to simply use the software. For example, the GNU GPL only comes in effect if you wish to distribute the software.

Actually, you can't even use MSIE 6, if you don't, and I quote: "HAVE A VALID LICENSE FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT 4.0, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000, MICROSOFT MILLENNIUM EDITION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP, OR ANY OTHER MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THE FOREGOING OPERATING SYSTEMS)"

Which means, MSIE is only as free as the cheapest version of Windows that you can get, if it's one of the one above. If you have Windows 95, and somehow manages to get MSIE 6 working on it, you are in breach of the EULA, and could be prosecuted. Nice, isn't it?

It also means, ofcourse, that you can't run MSIE under WINE if you don't have a Windows license.

PS. Notice that it says Millennium Edition, instead of "Windows Millennium Edition". Does that mean that you can't run MSIE 6 on Win ME? Or is it a successor to Win 98? Why is it even in the list, then?

[Jessterw]

Creating new standards is not the same thing as attempting to divide the Internet. XML was a new standard that Microsoft is very much a creative force behind, so is XML bad? SOAP is another good example.

Both Open Source and Close Source software have their benefits and detractions. Neither is better than the other. But this isn't about either so I'm not going to get into that.

I like IE, I like Mozilla better. IE doesn't do everything right, but it comes pretty damn close. If you want to complain about standards then look no further than Opera... then again they are finally rectifying most of their faults in the standards area with the 7 release. I'm sure Microsoft will release a version of IE that supports as many standards as Mozilla.

The whole OSS and "you can fix the problem yourself" argument holds little value when it comes down the majority of Internet users, most of whom wouldn't know where to begin (we're talking about people who think Visual Basic is complicated).

As for my thoughts on Palladium and Longhorn. There is a lot of misunderstanding on what is going on there. To give you a hint I'd probably buy Longhorn when it is release over using Linux... for that matter I would choose BSD over Linux if I was so inclinded to move my desktop systems to a non-MS platform.

Anyways, let's get back to the topic

[Jessterw]

Originally posted by albatorsk
And let's not forget, many times with OSS, the end user does NOT have to agree to the license to simply use the software. For example, the GNU GPL only comes in effect if you wish to distribute the software.

Actually, you can't even use MSIE 6, if you don't, and I quote: "HAVE A VALID LICENSE FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT 4.0, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000, MICROSOFT MILLENNIUM EDITION, MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP, OR ANY OTHER MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THE FOREGOING OPERATING SYSTEMS)"

Which means, MSIE is only as free as the cheapest version of Windows that you can get, if it's one of the one above. If you have Windows 95, and somehow manages to get MSIE 6 working on it, you are in breach of the EULA, and could be prosecuted. Nice, isn't it?

It also means, ofcourse, that you can't run MSIE under WINE if you don't have a Windows license.

PS. Notice that it says Millennium Edition, instead of "Windows Millennium Edition". Does that mean that you can't run MSIE 6 on Win ME? Or is it a successor to Win 98? Why is it even in the list, then?

First off any reference to Millennium Edition means Microsoft Windows ME (Millennium Edition)... which is fairly obvious unless you are just looking for things wrong.

Secondly, if you don't like the EULA then don't use it. Pretty simple. Not trying to sound like an ass, but it gets old hearing people complain about MS EULA's when they say they don't even use the products. *shrug* This is one of those pointless debates that no one will ever win.

[albatorsk]

It was just to show that MS Internet Explorer isn't free.

[Jessterw]

I think we all know it's not free in that sense. Although that's not entirely true, the Mac version is free and so was the Unix version (pretty sure that one is relegated to the dust bin now).

[leech]

Funny how, if XML is being pushed by Microsoft, that linux is using it everywhere. I'm not just talking in web pages, but Gnome uses it a lot as well. The problem with Microsoft trying to create new 'standards' is that they won't be standard to any operating system but they're own, hence they can't truly be considered standards. For example, IE cannot be truly considered standard because it isn't multi-platform. There should be a standard base of code for all browsers, in my opinion. Of course the downside of that would be that if there were bugs in the base code, then every application based off of that code would have the bug as well, but that's another reason why Mozilla being open sourced is great for everyone.

To get back on topic, this is about suggestions for Mozilla. We could actually get everything that we don't like about Mozilla and make a list, then send it to the Mozilla Dev team and get improvements. Let's see THAT happen with IE....

Leech

[leech]

And for a last point, Which just sounds cooler? Internet Explorer, or Mozilla? Mozilla just <i>sounds</i> cooler!

Leech

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by Jesterzwild
I think we all know it's not free in that sense.

In what sense is it free, then? Just to be specific here, but since you have to pay Microsoft to use it, I would say it's not free in any sense.

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by leech
Mozilla just <i>sounds</i> cooler!

Couldn't agree more!

[Jessterw]

Originally posted by leech
Funny how, if XML is being pushed by Microsoft, that linux is using it everywhere. I'm not just talking in web pages, but Gnome uses it a lot as well. The problem with Microsoft trying to create new 'standards' is that they won't be standard to any operating system but they're own, hence they can't truly be considered standards. For example, IE cannot be truly considered standard because it isn't multi-platform. There should be a standard base of code for all browsers, in my opinion...

First off the fact that XML is being used by others than Microsoft in no way detracts from the fact that Microsoft is a big proponent and creative element in the creation and development of XML. The very nature of a standard is that it should be used by everyone. You can't have it both ways here. Microsoft has also participated in the development of many standards that are indeed cross platform.. SOAP anyone? Oh and you do know they are porting aspects of .NET and CLR to other platforms (CLR being a standard now I believe), not to mention the Mono project.

I'm a little confused by the belief that a browser can be a standard. The browser is merely an application that acts as a viewer for various types of files. No browser is considered a standard for that matter, just as no other application or OS is cosidered a standard (in the sense that we are talking about).

Originally posted by albatorsk
In what sense is it free, then? Just to be specific here, but since you have to pay Microsoft to use it, I would say it's not free in any sense.

I pay Microsoft to use Windows XP, not IE (since I use Mozilla anyhow). In what sense? It's not free in the sense that to use it on any platform other than Windows on which a version of IE is not available (assuming you got it to run, such as under Wine), you have to own a copy of Windows. Otherwise you CAN get IE for Mac for free, and for the most part any new versions can be downloaded for free regardless of what version you started out with (Windows 95 now being an expection, but that's to be expected).

[leech]

Specifically I don't mean using a browser per se as a 'standard' more as a framework for others to base their browser off of, like Mozilla already has. For instance there is Galeon, Phoenix, Chimera, etc. I know I'm forgetting quite a few. Plus Mozilla has the codebase for a embedded devices.

The reason I think it's funny that Microsoft is a proponent of XML and yet everyone else is using it far more than anything I've seen from microsoft is that they push it, but people are using it against them.

I use Mozilla because I like it a lot better than IE, it's more stable for me, and plus when I use linux, which I do a lot, then I would like to have compatibility with everything I do.

Personally when I create a page (and no I don't use the WYSIWYG editors, 'cause they don't work very well) I try to create it so that it'll look good in BOTH IE and Mozilla. Opera is a much smaller base of users, and I probably should work with that as well. But most people are not as flexible or are even willing to put in the extra time it takes to make a website viewable by all. And that's just sad.

Leech