Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
Sources inside AOL and Red Hat say AOL is making a major internal switch to Linux, and the long-rumored AOL default browser switch from Microsoft's Internet Explorer to Mozilla -- or at least Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine -- is well under way
AOL number-crunchers figure they can replace an $80,000 box running proprietary UNIX with two $5,000 Linux boxes and get a 50% increase in performance
we have enough security problems of our own without adding Microsoft's,
Quote of the week.
"Don't tell our competitors," one of our AOL contacts says. "Let them keep buying expensive crap."
That about sums up several companies I've worked attitude to linux. When they finally get it - Linux, BSD, PC based servers running in groups to ensure robustness really are the way forward - they don't want their competitors finding out. There's 20 years of prejudice against PC based hardware by (some) Unix engineers because of Microsoft, particularly found in large corporate environments. At the other end of the spectrum the MCSE's seem to be in many of the decision making positions in the smaller enterprises ... probably cause the CEO likes Windows and hires on the basis of Windows knowledge.
I think now that some really high profile companies are going public with their Linux use that these attitudes may disappear.
> Although I hate MS I was hoping Netscape would disappear.
I agree that Netscape Browsers prior to version 6 will hopefully disappear soon, but Mozilla/Gecko browsers are extremely good. (Using mozilla now). The more standard compliant browsers out there the better for the web. Hopefully the days of "best viewed with Internet Explorer 4.1" websites are over.
This may be bad for Microsoft, but more Web sites following industry-wide standards is good for everyone else. Maybe the Web Standards Project will finally get some of the respect and cooperation it has deserved all along.
I'm sure glad I started down the path to validation over a year ago. This is going to open quite a few eyes in the design community. You either build compliant web sites or you lose a vast majority of your viewing audience.
I made a comment in a topic elsewhere stating that NS4.7 was probably the best html validator out there! ;)
The only thing that might delay -- not stop, just delay -- AOL's change from Explorer to a Mozilla-based browser is allowing time for some of AOL's largest and most important "partner sites" to do away with any Explorer-specific features they have been using in place of W3C standards.
Agreed with pageoneresults, until Opera came around. ;)
I have found all versions of Netscape unstable, they never bring up the page properly, they are plain terrible.
Mozilla is a heap of junk which doesn't work properly.
The only browser which I've found to be user-friendly and stable is IE.you sure you do not mean user snoopy and security hole prone? Finding patches is always a treat, and IE still remains the only browser that is intricately tied to the OS and will not allow several versions on one desktop, in separate folders, like the rest.
I will never user anything else. I hate the Opera user interface, just can't stand it. So I'm sticking to IE thank you very much.
Agreed with pageoneresults, until Opera came around.Hehehe. I just became an Opera fan about six months ago. I've always had a copy of NS4.7 open when designing. I'm sure I'll make the progression to Opera sooner than expected, especially now that W3C compliance will be at the forefront of discussions here at WebMaster World.
I agree wholeheartedly! I am always shocked at the attitude of "I hope Netscape will just disappear!" The internet is still widely HTML based and NN 4.7 does a very good job of finding holes in designs.
I have 7 browsers and rarely use IE (any version) except to check for any rendering problems. I use Opera and NN to surf. IE screws up fonts BIG time and rarely looks anything like the way a page is designed as a result!
I'm with Brett on this issue. I think it is going to revive the competitiveness of the browser industry. Those that take the time to validate their pages on a wide variety of browsers will ultimately win out. Who knows ... maybe Uncle Bill will put his team to work and come up with a new browser that actually works ... sans security holes, patches, rendering problems ... etc!
Competition is always a good thing to improve the quality of all products!
I have found all versions of Netscape unstable, they never bring up the page properly, they are plain terrible. Mozilla is a heap of junk which doesn't work properly. The only browser which I've found to be user-friendly and stable is IE. I will never user anything else. I hate the Opera user interface, just can't stand it. So I'm sticking to IE thank you very much.
backus, great post I agree 100% that sums up my feelings exactly!
We tend to look at our sites in NN4.7, IE5 (now IE6), and Opera to check the display, (and in different window sizes). I assumed that NN4.7 was more compliant than IE (any version), but the key problem is that it does not support recent standards like CSS2? In fact our css2 designed pages dont parse well in NN4.7 well at all.
Is not this the biggest problem with NN4, especially when an important segment of web users seem to be "stuck" on it (especially say educational institutions, "casual users" and new-age-internet pioneer surfers who dont like MS products and were brought up on Mosaic->NS) and havent upgraded to a version which supports new standards?
NN4.7 is pretty old in Web terms.
Man, their servers are quick. I was downloading at an average of 287kb/sec, not bad for a basic commercial cable modem package!
The few sites that I've browsed to look just like they should. Browser speed is very impressive! For those who would like to download, here is the link...
Other problems with that lame browser is that it is very slow in rendering most pages, crashes all the time, poor scripting support, etc...
I must admit that Netscape 6.1 is much better in its standards support and functionality, but it still needs to work on its stability...
I have IE in VMWare for checking, but I feel sorry for people who use it all the time. It's like going back to kindergarten...here's what you're allowed to, and don't talk to the dodgy geezers...
Not going to mention my linux workstations's uptime, but I had to reboot in January when I added more ram...
Code Guru's, we make sure your site works with aol!
Painless and cost effective compatability with Mozilla
Psst, what if 20% of your users can't actually see your site?
Oh man - I could see running validation spiders to go out right now and find those sites - let's get busy.
Netscape vs Mozilla: What's the difference? [webmasterworld.com]
I must say it is good to *finally* see corporations realize that 'just because the software is free doesn't make it bad'.
Indeed. I'm not a fan of Netscape browsers, I'm not a fan of Netscape and above all I don't trust AOL: Netscape-AOL knows what YOU are searching for [webmasterworld.com]
MS Internet explorer is a good product apart from two issues, security and lack of standard compliance.
Like most people I'd love to see their predominance broken, but not neccessarily in favour of Netscape/AOL.
Became highly addicted to mouse gestures lately...
the problems with websites and browsers have never really been with people not building standards compatible websites, they've been with web browsers applying those standards to how they display websites. miss a </td> in your code and netscrap 4.7 would kindly display a blank screen. very helpful. IE on the other hand, would display the table as intended.
and now that AOL might be using netscrap 6.x or mozilla x.x? all the cries of "i'm glad i validated my code" are meaningless. netscrap 6 has been built to display websites properly (as opposed to nn4.7 which wasn't) and so almost anything that works in IE will also work in nn6.
and what if the version of netscrap or mozilla that AOL chooses cannot display sites properly? how long would AOL be able to get away with saying "not our fault, contact the webmasters and tell them their site isnt standards compatible"? not long. people would hold AOL responsible, not the huge number of webmasters. they will simply switch to a browser that can display websites as they were intended to be seen. and if that means leaving AOL, then that's what they'll do. why pay for a service that doesn't work properly?