Firefox 3 - going for the record

[Mord_Sith]

That's the problem with IE, it does not even try to follow standards, driving every developer up the bloody wall!

No I cannot say that -ONE- website's stats are a major showing, so here's a few MORE to chew on!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/wired_readers_p.html

I can keep going if you want more.

As for IE's compliance, that's why they're so hated, because of their ass-backwards box model among -MANY- other things!

These improvements address many of the inconsistencies that can cause web developers problems when producing visually rich, interactive webpages. The improved support for CSS 2.1, including selectors and fixed positioning, allow web developers to create more powerful effects without the use of script.

From:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/features.mspx

Can't help downloading it when it's an Active-X hack!

Opera is barely above 5% market share ANYWHERE, in my opinion that's hardly a success compared to Firefox.

He hints that the window of opportunity for the hack was made through JAVA, that's not JAVA's fault, as it's acting how it's supposed to, Microsoft is the troublemaker for having that bug available to be accessed.

The only MS based servers that could be corporate are ones running coldfusion, but for the love of pete why bother coding in a propritery pile of rubbish like coldfusion when PHP is so much more portable, and cheaper to run!

My point is that most servers on the net have ALWAYS been Unix, with ASP pages is where the windows servers came to pass, before that making windows into a server was a joke!

Ok, forward slashes are a nuance of the unix world, root is "/" and from there the directory tree goes /this/is/a/subfolder/far/far/away/from/the_root.txt

Another nuance is that unix cannot accept spaces in directory trees easily, it was never programmed to and likely the command prompt never will handle spaces without quoting the offending string.

I fail for wanting to use tools that make my work easier in Firefox that were NEVER DESIGNED for Opera in the first place?

Puhleeze, I've experimented with bringing debian packages into Ubuntu, they say it's supposed to work 98% of the time... either I hit that 2% mark right off the bat, or someone's lying to me.

I'm not about to blow away my browsers because I decided to experiment thankyoukindly.

(See prior post directly from Microsloth)

Point noted, a pity it didn't come earlier, however it doesn't change the fact that IE can't even pass ACID although they say they're 2.1 compliant.

 

[TheWesDude]

No I cannot say that -ONE- website's stats are a major showing, so here's a few MORE to chew on!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/wired_readers_p.html

I can keep going if you want more.

and yet wiki is the only one that i recognize in that list.

get some stats of some huge sites such as yahoo, msn, aol, and other sites. going to "tech savvy" sites you will find a lower browser share to IE because they are more aimed at the techie people who have a less tendancy to use IE because of the MS hate. some deserved, some not deserved.




and in that part you quoted:

These improvements address many of the inconsistencies that can cause web developers problems when producing visually rich, interactive webpages. The improved support for CSS 2.1, including selectors and fixed positioning, allow web developers to create more powerful effects without the use of script.

again, partial support, not full support. they do not claim full compliance, only partial on what they choose to support. you can demand WoW on the Wii all you want, but its prolly not going to happen any time soon. MS chooses what they support and what they dont. if its really that big of an issue for the web pages that you design be standards compliant, then why do you care what MS does. if you are trying to make pages BROWSER compliant, then you need to make sure your browser supports at least the top 3-5 browsers on the market within reason.

He hints that the window of opportunity for the hack was made through JAVA, that's not JAVA's fault, as it's acting how it's supposed to, Microsoft is the troublemaker for having that bug available to be accessed.

so its microsofts fault that Mac OS X and linux have java vulnerabilities and had to use a mozilla browser to exploit?

this needs some explination on your part. the logic of your argument is not making sense to me.

Point noted, a pity it didn't come earlier, however it doesn't change the fact that IE can't even pass ACID although they say they're 2.1 compliant.

source?

 

[Mord_Sith]

So techies aren't people too? aren't you a bit of a segregationist!

A bit of an oldie but it should sink the point home.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061010-7949.html

The point was, and still is, that Firefox is the reason why IE7 was made to -TRY- and compete (However it is failing miserably much to my glee as it is still loosing ground.)

Now let's take some creative license from these figures shall we?

2 year old data at this point, the rate of increase is about 2.02% per 3 month period...

Now this has probably leveled off a bit by now but roughly by the rate of increase it would be around: 24.58%.

I don't know, the part that says 'SUPPORT for CSS 2.1 means they are SUPPORTING CSS 2.1 however that would not be microsloth, AT THE VERY LEAST they should properly support CSS 1.0!

They aren't saying 'partial' they're saying 'Support' don't put words there that aren't pretty please.

By the way, stop it with the WoWto> Wii thing, it makes no bloody sense and I am not exactly talking about going to the moon here, I'm talking about adhering to standards the rest of the industry has agreed to play along with but Microsloth doesn't care.

It's Microsloth's fault because one, they refuse to properly support JAVA, instead they even tried to lock it out completely in XP, however it's still a very common programming language to date, mostly on mobile phones but nonetheless it's out there!

Anyways I digress, it's a fault in the OS that was accessed through JAVA, yes JAVA allowed it to be accessed, but just because JAVA was the catalyst, does not mean that we should burn it at the stake.

It's like a box falling from the roof and blaming the air for not stopping it, it just doesn't make any damn sense to blame JAVA when it's operating to specifications when it's Microsloth that has the opening to begin with.

As for Mac & Linux, Linux was not cracked, if you recall your own article, second the Mac was cracked using a different method than the JAVA bypass & hack, and somehow I don't think it would have worked.

Unless you have some asinine issues with Cnet as well this oughtta do you.
http://news.cnet.com/Next-Explorer-to-fail-Acid-test/2100-1032_3-5813897.html?tag=nefd.top

 

[Mord_Sith]

Additionally here's the ACID test results from the site itself.

IE7 does pass ACID 1 but after that it fails misrebly

http://www.sciactive.com/main/index.php?Itemid=1&id=133&option=com_content&task=view

 

[TheWesDude]

I don't know, the part that says 'SUPPORT for CSS 2.1 means they are SUPPORTING CSS 2.1 however that would not be microsloth, AT THE VERY LEAST they should properly support CSS 1.0!

and yet your firefox does not pass acid test 2 or 3. havent looked up weather or not Fx passes the 1.0...

so i guess that means Fx isnt CSS 2.0 or 3.0 compliant either.

They aren't saying 'partial' they're saying 'Support' don't put words there that aren't pretty please.

correct, they say IMPROVED which means it was not fully compliant before, nor were they fully compliant either, but they were more compliant than before. you either have no compliance, some compliance, or full compliance. saying partial compliance is the same as saying partial compliance.

if you really want to nit-pick, you can subsitute partial for improved.

By the way, stop it with the WoWto> Wii thing, it makes no bloody sense and I am not exactly talking about going to the moon here, I'm talking about adhering to standards the rest of the industry has agreed to play along with but Microsloth doesn't care.

the rest of the industry? like who? Fx 1.0, 2.0, safari, and IE all fail the acid 2.0 and 3.0 test. opera 9.5B1 on the other hand passes the acid 2.0 test. by saying the rest of the industry, you cannot include Fx or safari in that statement because it would be false.

It's Microsloth's fault because one, they refuse to properly support JAVA, instead they even tried to lock it out completely in XP, however it's still a very common programming language to date, mostly on mobile phones but nonetheless it's out there!

Anyways I digress, it's a fault in the OS that was accessed through JAVA, yes JAVA allowed it to be accessed, but just because JAVA was the catalyst, does not mean that we should burn it at the stake.

you miss the salient parts of the bolded sections.
1) it was a java exploit
2) they had to use safari and NOT ie
3) it affected all 3 OSes because the method was not an OS exploit, but a 3rd party environment (java) AND a 3rd party browser (safari)

how again is faults in java and safari microsofts fault again? you need to explain this reasoning.

As for Mac & Linux, Linux was not cracked, if you recall your own article, second the Mac was cracked using a different method than the JAVA bypass & hack, and somehow I don't think it would have worked.

Mac was cracked first, and the same java+safari exploit that brought down vista would have also brought down both mac and linux. did you focus on the bolded parts at all or just ignore those parts?

Unless you have some asinine issues with Cnet as well this oughtta do you.

and per the article you linked, in 2005 they stated they had no intention of out of the box compliance to pass the test.

even 3 years later you are still crying about it when they stated even before IE7 was released that they were not going to pass the acid test and that it wasnt a priority...

the WoW to Wii example is quite applicable... you are wanting something that has never been announced or is even a priority to either blizz or nintendo...

full compliance is not a priority to MS. they have never claimed full compliance. crying about it is not going to do much. even crying about it when your vaunted Fx doesnt pass either just makes you sound like a hypocrite.

IE7 does pass ACID 1 but after that it fails misrebly

Fx fails miserably too but i dont see you saying that as well.

 

[Neamos]

I scrolled through the nerdrage and nerdpinions and don't think that the release date was posted: June 17.

Ohboyohboyohboy

 

[Mord_Sith]

Actually it barely failed the ACID 2 test, compare that to IE's track record on ACID 2.

I'm not substituting, I'm saying that at the very least they should properly support CSS 1.0, but IE7 can't even handle percentage widths, even IE6 can for crissakes, it's a bloody madhouse!

The rest of the industry (Being Fx, O, Sf, Konq, etc.) are all heading towards standards compliance, even if Fx is not as quick about it as your precious Opera that does not mean that it isn't heading towards it, beta 3 (and subsequently Fx 3) has passed the ACID 2 test and IE7 isn't even bloody close.

So to compound it, it's not JUST JAVA, but it's also BETA Safari software, yeah great exploit, whod've thought that beta software would have bugs in it!

I did read your bit there, but I must have missed the bit about using the beta safari browser, I still think it wouldn't fly on Mac because Safari's ironed out there, the windows version is still in beta.

Nevertheless, the catalyst was JAVA, the bug is still in the OS itself, but access to it was gained from JAVA, that's like blaming the air for not stopping your box once again.

I'm still crying about it because I work with the damn stuff every day, I have to have a separate CSS sheet because IE7 is nowhere near any other browser!

But WoW to Wii is irritating the hell out of me, because as I said, I'm not asking for the moon here, I'm asking for what every other browser has embraced and is working towards, while IE holds up the show.

Microsloth has always done it's own thing, and not cared about anyone else period, that's the biggest pissoff about that lot in general, they got us by the balls and they know it.

However with browsers there is choice, and with choice comes freedom.

-EDIT-

By the way Neamos, I'll take a page from your book...

Deal with it!

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

Opera 9.5 was released today! Yay!

83/100 on Acid3. Let's see you beat it.

 

[myzko]

Opera 9.5 is out? That's great.. I just hope it comes with the feature "auto complete" that Internet Explorer & Firefox has..



yays

 

[TheWesDude]

Actually it barely failed the ACID 2 test, compare that to IE's track record on ACID 2.

I'm not substituting, I'm saying that at the very least they should properly support CSS 1.0, but IE7 can't even handle percentage widths, even IE6 can for crissakes, it's a bloody madhouse!

so its ok for Fx to have partial compliance with CSS standards but its not ok for IE to have partial compliance?

hypocrite

The rest of the industry (Being Fx, O, Sf, Konq, etc.) are all heading towards standards compliance, even if Fx is not as quick about it as your precious Opera that does not mean that it isn't heading towards it, beta 3 (and subsequently Fx 3) has passed the ACID 2 test and IE7 isn't even bloody close.

MS has said they are moving twords compliance, its just not a priority but it is a goal. Fx is moving twords compliance, its a priority, and they STILL are not compliant and it took them untill their 3rd version to pass the 2nd acid test.

whats worse:
a browser who's priority is compliance and isnt
a browser who's priority is not compliance and isnt

i would say the top one is worse.

So to compound it, it's not JUST JAVA, but it's also BETA Safari software, yeah great exploit, whod've thought that beta software would have bugs in it!

I did read your bit there, but I must have missed the bit about using the beta safari browser, I still think it wouldn't fly on Mac because Safari's ironed out there, the windows version is still in beta.

the windows version of safari was beta on 3/28/08?

and yet you failed yet again to see what the person who did the exploit said, the person who did the exploit said it may take a few changes but it would work on all 3 OSes.

Nevertheless, the catalyst was JAVA, the bug is still in the OS itself, but access to it was gained from JAVA, that's like blaming the air for not stopping your box once again.

strawman. quoted and bolded portions say it was available on all 3 OSes.

I'm still crying about it because I work with the damn stuff every day, I have to have a separate CSS sheet because IE7 is nowhere near any other browser!

complaining about compliance that a company that has never claimed that compliance was their priority is idiotic.

you: i wanna play wow on my wii!
blizz: uhhhh we never said we were going to do that, its not a priority
you: i dont care, i wanna play wow on my wii!
blizz: are you stupid or something? we are not going to do that
you: waaaaa waaaa waaaa

make sense yet?

because as I said, I'm not asking for the moon here, I'm asking for what every other browser has embraced and is working towards, while IE holds up the show.

see above

if it bothers you that much, stop designing pages to be compliant with IE6/7 and make pages that are compliant with the standards. that solves your problem. why dont you just do that?

Microsloth has always done it's own thing, and not cared about anyone else period, that's the biggest pissoff about that lot in general, they got us by the balls and they know it.

why would they care what other people do? untill someone makes them they dont need to. hell, the same argument could be made against Fx because they are not the most compliant browser out there. are you going to Fx forums and bitching that they are not fully compliant or even the most compliant browser out there? if not, then you are a hypocrite.

However with browsers there is choice, and with choice comes freedom.

and you are choosing a browser more compliant than IE, but less than other browsers out there.

because if you are not also complaining about Fx not being compliant, you are being a hypocrite.

 

[ZiggyMeister]

I just went to their site: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/en-US/worldrecord/

And I Pledge to download Firefox 3 on the 17th of June 2008.

Firefox Rules, IE is the Devil!

Although the Beta 5 that I already tried had a problem with the Web-Email server from my ISP. But I never had this problem with any of the 2.xxxxx versions...

 

[Mord_Sith]

Now you're just blatantly attacking me and not the browsers, stop it.

The reason why designers, that includes myself, have to make it for all is because of the knobs and knobetts out there who still use IE5.5, we HAVE to design pages that work, otherwise we'll just wind up back where we started with the Netscape / IE browser wars.

You state that Firefox 3 is way behind, but IE is on it's 7TH iteration, don't you think they should be done dragging their ass?

Just because I am not an Opera cronie does not mean that I cannot appreciate it for what it has, simply that Firefox, yes even with your paranoia about it's security exploits, can do more work in the browser window for my design work than Opera can, plain and simple.

This was never about Fox Vs Opera, so stop comparing the two like it means something.

I'm hardly being a hypocrite when I say that at least Fox is working on it, and I'm not trying to force-feed you the bullocks that Firefox is safer/better/godknowswhatelse over your precious Opera.

IE is not moving towards compliance because they wanted to get something out FAST so that it can compete with the newest modifications, it's mostly a repack with a few fixes, and a lot more breaks, of IE6!

That's what he says, I'd like to see his money where his mouth is, unless they -JUST- installed it that day, yes it was beta 3 software, as Safari was not on windows until beta3 (remember, designer, I gotta keep on top of this kind of crap?)

The final release of the Windows version (3.1 (525.13)) was offered as a free download on March 18, 2008.

From Wikipedia on Safari:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)

Besides, Safari isn't exactly secure either, one quick googling of "Safari Windows" Yeilds first the Apple page, then a list of 'Safari not so safe' blogs and pages.

http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/29445/exploit

Odds are it's not JAVA so much as it is Safari 'ere hmm?

Once again, WoW on Wii makes no sense, do I need a mallet to get that into your head? I'm talking about standards here, you're trapezing on about personal preference.

why would they care what other people do? untill someone makes them they dont need to. hell, the same argument could be made against Fx because they are not the most compliant browser out there. are you going to Fx forums and bitching that they are not fully compliant or even the most compliant browser out there? if not, then you are a hypocrite.

This makes no sense whatsoever, please let's get some actual thought before replying next time?


If you're done having your hissyfit shall we continue the discussion or are we finished here?

 

[TheWesDude]

The reason why designers, that includes myself, have to make it for all is because of the knobs and knobetts out there who still use IE5.5, we HAVE to design pages that work, otherwise we'll just wind up back where we started with the Netscape / IE browser wars.

so then you admit to desiring browser compatibility rather than standards compliance. if you want your web pages to be compatible with the widest audience, then you made the choice to design your web pages independant of standards compliance because not all browsers are compliant in all aspects or in all features.

you are whining about a choice you made, not the choice MS made.

You state that Firefox 3 is way behind, but IE is on it's 7TH iteration, don't you think they should be done dragging their ass?

i never stated that Fx was way behind, but rather that they were not in compliance with the standards either.

and you used another strawman here as well, firefox has been out far shorter than IE ever was, plus you have to factor in the time-span that development stopped.

Just because I am not an Opera cronie does not mean that I cannot appreciate it for what it has, simply that Firefox, yes even with your paranoia about it's security exploits, can do more work in the browser window for my design work than Opera can, plain and simple.

if your argument is about browsers that are NOT standards compliance, then you should be using a browser that is MORE compatible with standards. non-sequitor

This was never about Fox Vs Opera, so stop comparing the two like it means something.

originally it was IE vs Fx but you turned it into a standards compliance argument. opera is more standards compliant so based on your arguments, you should detest Fx also because it isnt standards compliant either.

I'm hardly being a hypocrite when I say that at least Fox is working on it, and I'm not trying to force-feed you the bullocks that Firefox is safer/better/godknowswhatelse over your precious Opera.

im arguing in favor of IE. i use opera as my primary browser NOW and for limited times in the past, but IE 6 was my favorite browser for a few reasons.

and at least you admit that Fx is not safer or as standards compliant as opera. where you lose the argument is complaining about standards compliant browser and then purposefully using and designing in a non-standards compliant browser when there is a standards compliant browser.

That's what he says, I'd like to see his money where his mouth is, unless they -JUST- installed it that day, yes it was beta 3 software, as Safari was not on windows until beta3 (remember, designer, I gotta keep on top of this kind of crap?)

it would not have been the beta 3 software of safari because the vista machine had SP1 on it which was released just days before the conference. more evidence you did not read the article or else understand what you were reading.

Besides, Safari isn't exactly secure either, one quick googling of "Safari Windows" Yeilds first the Apple page, then a list of 'Safari not so safe' blogs and pages.

safari = mozilla netscape
firefox = mozilla as well

Odds are it's not JAVA so much as it is Safari 'ere hmm?

again, more evidence you never read the article or else you just didnt understand it. it was a JAVA exploit accessable under safari but NOT ie. due to JAVA and SAFARI being open-source AND multi-platform, mac+MS+linux ALL had the vulnerability.

Once again, WoW on Wii makes no sense, do I need a mallet to get that into your head? I'm talking about standards here, you're trapezing on about personal preference.

adhering to standards is personal preference as well. they are NOT requirements.

This makes no sense whatsoever, please let's get some actual thought before replying next time?

they are OPTIONAL standards. they do not HAVE to design their browsers to be compliant with W3C or anything anyone else comes up with.

you are acting like there is some requirement somewhere that every browser creator MUST adhere to these standards. there isnt and MS chooses not to.

when you design a web page, you can either make it browser compliant, or you can make it standards compliant. not ALL browsers support ALL standards that are out there.

i can go to a web page in opera (again, much more standards compliant than even Fx) and they can have the designed for Fx and IE marks, yet be all messed up in the display.

if YOU choose to make your pages BROWSER compliant, you have to accept that not all browsers adhere to the same standards and expecting them to is idiotic.

 

[Mord_Sith]

First off, I must admit that I have been drinking at this point, hanging out with friends and all, so I don't really vouch for all of this, however to put it bluntly:

I use Fx because it helps make my job easier, and with IE7 I need all the help I can get as it just fucks everything over that I have learned thusfar.

Opera I don't use because originally the ads turned me off, that's personal preference, however I must also say that using some of the tools (Firebug, WebDev tools, etc.) may not work correctly in Opera because the require a lot of interaction with the chrome itself and not just the window.

I have no choice but to make pages browser compliant, it's my job, but that doesn't mean that I like it, I would honestly like to see all of them, Fx included, adhere to standards, however it does not happen, this is the real world, not dreamland, so I have to program for +90% compatibility across browsers because there are still people who use IE 5.5.

Stop calling me a hypocrite, stop calling me a wisher for Wow to Wii as it is really irritating, to be perfectly honest, you sound like a self absorbed prick with nothing better to do than rip down my day with another flame-bait post.

My only complaint is that MS is so stoic that they can't see that everyone else is going compliance but they're stuck in the stone age compared to the rest of the browsers out there, and that makes almost triple the work for a webdev than if they stuck with IE6!

I also believe my arguments are valid, constantly calling them strawmen because you think they're invalid is rediculous, either that or you don't want to face them head on so you misdirect them with the term 'strawman.'

It's the same thing with Scientology, I have the respect to address every point, even if it sounds stupid to me, why can't you do the same?

My comparison is due to your statement that

MS has said they are moving twords compliance, its just not a priority but it is a goal. Fx is moving twords compliance, its a priority, and they STILL are not compliant and it took them untill their 3rd version to pass the 2nd acid test.

If you aren't going to compare your statements with the same credentials as you compare mine then this discussion is over.

Once again, if you want to attack me fine, but I'm not going to bother considering this a serious discussion if you do so further.

Good Night!