Forum Moderators: open
[pcworld.com ]
Internet Explorer has held more than 95 percent of the browser market since June 2002, and until June had remained steady with about 95.7 percent of the browser market, according to WebSideStory's measurements. Over the last month, however, its market share has slowly dropped from 95.73 percent on June 4 to 94.73 percent on July 6.A loss of 1 percent of the market may not mean much to Microsoft, but it translates into a large growth, proportionately, in the number of users running Mozilla and Netscape-based browsers. Mozilla and Netscape's combined market share has increased by 26 percent, rising from 3.21 percent of the market in June to 4.05 percent in July, Johnston said.
IMHO Mozilla has an even higher market share than this when you look at non-newbie websites. And also consider that every AOL user is practically forced to use IE so all those millions get lopped in. I feel Mozilla really has broken the 10% market share with the 0.9 release of Firefox after studying various website logs.
Also, if you are a FireFox fan, the Mozilla team would like your help:
[weblogs.mozillazine.org...]
But it goes hand in hand with naivety. What corporation would ever issue statements such as:
We've had tens of thousands of unique bug reporters file a quarter of a million bug reports in Bugzilla! We get millions of downloads of releases that each result in tens of thousands of TalkBack crash reports.
A quarter of a million bug reports? Tens of thousands of crashes per release? That's enough to put off the general user.
Bugzilla is a great system, but the reality is that it can take years to get these bugs fixed. IMHO possibly because volunteers only want to work on the interesting bits - more bells and whistles. For example in the earlier Firefox thread there were quite a few adverse comments about Firefox bookmarks. But this matter was initially raised years ago. See [bugzilla.mozilla.org...]
Bug #77411 raised 24 April 2001, "fixed" 21 October 2003
When you do a Sort by attribute (Name, Location etc) in the bookmarks management
window, that Sort should
- apply to the view in the bookmarks sidebar
- apply to the view in the bookmarks pulldown menu in Nav
- be persistent across sessions.
I've verified that the first two do not happen, which is a bug.
Initially it was hoped to have the bug fixed in Mozilla 0.9.2. But in February 2003 one commentator was writing;
Would be real nice if a developer showed some initiative and FIXED this bug. We need less talk and more action!
The status is now "FIXED", but in fact the second problem still exisits in Firefox which is accepted by the bug assignee.
May 2003
Yeah, it's only fixed in Mozilla due to lack of resources.
June 2003
Please don't change the product, but feel free to file a similar bug for Firebird
Don't think I'll bother... Life's too short.
I think the only way open-source browsers will ever make the big time is if the product is taken up by a commercial organisation and becomes subject to corporate discipline. For instance Opera. Where, for example, would Linux be today if it wasn't for organisations such as SuSe or RedHat?
Incidentally, what does
IMHO Mozilla has an even higher market share than this when you look at non-newbie websites.actually mean?
Imagine that Microsoft had a bugzilla site open for public posting about IE. That would probably collect as many reports in a month as Mozilla got during its life time.
Somehow I think you just don't like transparency. You prefer the bugs and the process of their removal to be kept a secret from you.
Don't think I'll bother... Life's too short.
And this after piling heaps of scorn on a product that was produced by unpaid volunteers in their free time? You need to work on your consistency... ;)
Incidentally, what does "IMHO Mozilla has an even higher market share than this when you look at non-newbie websites." actually mean?
It means, if your site attracts a technically savvy audience, your percentage of Mozilla users will be a lot higher. Shouldn't really surprise anyone.
the reality is that it can take years to get these bugs fixed.
How long has IE had broken support for PNG? ....
IE developers only work on the bits they get paid to work on - mainly the bells and whistles the marketing department want.
If there's something you don't like in Mozilla/Firefox, you're free to fix it yourself. You're also free to pay someone else to fix it for you.
If there's something you don't like in Mozilla/Firefox, you're free to fix it yourself.
You've missed my point. I don't have that sort of skill, and I am sure the Jo(e) Public doesn't. Although for what it's worth I did contribute to Bugzilla on this bookmark problem.
Personally I think Firefox is quite a good browser, but the point I was trying to make is that for Firefox to reach a main-stream audience it will have to become a commercial product and be subject to commerial disciplines.
Even then it will face problems. Back in the 1970s the IBM 370 was king of the mainframes. There were other excellent products available such as Amdahl, but every Data Processing Manager knew that if things went belly up with their installation they could never get fired for sticking with IBM. But if they switched to something else and there were problems, the sky could fall in. (Been there, bought the T-shirt.)
True today with Linux. SuSe and RedHat are making inroads against MS in Europe, but only because they are commercial. They are answerable, they can be sued if things go wrong. But no large organisation with any sense is going to switch to a browser that is just downloaded from the internet and maintained by volunteers. If it's a bundled commercial product, then it stands a chance.
Somehow I think you just don't like transparency. You prefer the bugs and the process of their removal to be kept a secret from you
It's not my perception that counts. Talking about bugs and crashes is just bad PR.
Don't think I'll bother... Life's too short
If you read the bug report you will see that a number of contributers stated that the bookmark problem was the main reason they were not switching to Mozilla. In a commercial organisation this would have set off alarm bells, but the fix took over two years with Mozilla. Is there any reason to assume that raising a bug report for Firefox will result in speedier action?
Added later: If anyone wants to follow it up bug report #172526 has been raised. Duplicate of #77411, assigned, severity: Major.
[edited by: HarryM at 2:30 pm (utc) on July 11, 2004]
Kaled.
Fair enough. On the other hand, whether something is good or bad PR strongly depends on the target audience. People afraid to hear about bugs being squashed on a daily basis will probably never see the mozilla.org site anyway, let alone bugzilla. They'll download a branded version offered by their ISP.
The PR challenge is not in the copy on the mozilla.org site. The real challenge is getting the message into Joe Surfer's head that valid alternatives to IE even exist.
a number of contributers stated that the bookmark problem was the main reason they were not switching to Mozilla.
Some time ago, I contributed a similar statement myself about a different bug. There may only be a minority of bug reports in bugzilla where nobody has called that specific issue a deterrent for their own use. Just because bookmark sorting keeps you and a few others from switching, doesn't mean that a wider audience will even notice something is wrong. Cosmetic stuff like that may also be considered insignificant by people looking for an alternative to the flaky security in IE.
It means, if your site attracts a technically savvy audience, your percentage of Mozilla users will be a lot higher. Shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Yes, that's correct, my site attracts a technically savy audience, and it is currently running at 40% Mozilla, about 2.5% Opera, maybe 5% Safari/Konqueror.
HarryM, I'm not clear on what problem you are having with your bookmarks, I downloaded the sort bookmarks extension, installed it, deselected the folder first option, clicked sort, and my bookmarks are sorted.
Unfortunately there is no option to distinguish between folders and bookmarks on sublevels, which means the folders get sorted alphabetically on sublevels too, which I don't like.
The sort order was preserved on restart. What exactly is the problem you're having beyond this, I don't understand.
Also, the choice to use Firefox is a choice, it's not something you have to do. I've had no trouble switching standard users to it at all, as of Firebird 0.7, the advanced features you're looking for are not used by 99% of web surfers, the basic install works perfectly almost for newbies, who don't even know that you can arrange bookmarks or put them in folders.
Cosmetic stuff like that may also be considered insignificant
It's definitely important to distinguish between core a and cosmetic, I use and have used firebird/firefox for functional reasons, it works exactly the way I want a browser to work.
But no large organisation with any sense is going to switch to a browser that is just downloaded from the internet and maintained by volunteers. If it's a bundled commercial product, then it stands a chance.
If you want a commercial browser that is a good alternate choice use Opera, that's already out there. The mozilla project isn't thriving because it's a commercial project, it's thriving because it's not a commercial project, although commercial entities are involved in it. IE is a commercial project, activex is a commercial project, and those are the number one source of problems out there today on browsers.
Corporate take up of an OS is a completely different matter than individual choice of a browser. When a computer is hacked through win / IE vulnerabilities you can't go to MS and get reembursed for your repair expenses. As recent events have shown, there is no advantage to using a commercial product in terms of network security. There was a recent thread where a guy who is network admin for a billion dollar company swore that his network was fully secured and there were no vulnerabilities. A few weeks later the IE exploits were released, and his network was fully vulnerable.
[edited by: isitreal at 4:24 pm (utc) on July 11, 2004]
[edited by: tedster at 8:16 pm (utc) on July 11, 2004]
If I go to 'manage bookmarks' I can sort them, and they stay sorted across sessions OK. But if I click the dropdown bookmarks they are always unsorted. In effect the dropdown is useless if you have a large number of bookmarks.
No matter how many bookmarks you have, finding a bookmark takes 1 click in IE or Opera but takes 2 clicks in Firefox. Furthermore only IE offers sort combined with drag-and-drop plus hiding little-used bookmarks as standard.
I agree Firefox is a choice and I use it myself. But the average surfer will never even hear of it, which is my point. As to tech-savvy developers advising clients to switch to it, this carries a degree of risk. If something horrendous turns up later guess who gets blamed.
Furthermore only IE offers sort combined with drag-and-drop plus hiding little-used bookmarks as standard.
MS's auto hide function is one of my least favorite features, I hope this is never enabled in linux/mozilla, and if it is, that it is off by default.
No matter how many bookmarks you have, finding a bookmark takes 1 click in IE or Opera but takes 2 clicks in Firefox.
I don't know what you mean here, to find a bookmark takes the following, in opera, ie, or firefox:
click bookmarks, move mousedown folders, follow folder hierarchy to reach desired bookmark, click on bookmark.
I agree Firefox is a choice and I use it myself. But the average surfer will never even hear of it, which is my point. As to tech-savvy developers advising clients to switch to it, this carries a degree of risk. If something horrendous turns up later guess who gets blamed.
This argument makes no sense at all, mozilla isn't the source of spy/adware, it's not the source of the recent serious IE/Win/IIS exploits, it doesn't have active x, it can't permit js to turn back on disabled active x as leosghost demonstrated, so by your standards MS should be chided for something horrendous turning up now, in the past, and later. So why aren't you worried about blaming MS for this, or being held accountable when you urge the user to keep using IE?, when you are worried about some future possible blame for some future possible security hole in Mozilla?
A fully patched windows/IE combination was fully vulnerable in the recent exploits, and still are since the 'patch' to fix the first exploit has already been compromised.
When I go to someone's house and see a machine infested with adware, redirected searches, spyware, all installed through active x, I don't have to put some future blame, I can very accurately assign present blame. And when they ask me what to do to resolve this present, actually existent problem, caused by IE's feature bloat, active x, windows holes etc, I can immediately, now, drop the real, existing threat to their machine by having them switch permanantly to either Opera or Firefox, I can show them both and let them pick the one that fits them best.
IE in the future will have massive new security holes, it's guaranteed, and Mozilla will probably have security holes, but mozilla is not part of the OS like IE is, so in most cases it's quite likely the Mozilla hole may be less severe. I have no problem recommending Firefox because of this.
When a computer is hacked through win / IE vulnerabilities you can't go to MS and get reembursed for your repair expenses.
Of course not. Nor any browser maker.
My point was that if you are the guy who has to make the decision which browser a corporation should use, MS IE is the safe choice. If you choose a freebie and something goes wrong (no matter if its the browser's fault or not), you are very exposed. Not a good career move, which is why managers tend to play safe and corporations are slow to change technology. Think of all those organisations still soldiering-on with NS4...
MS IE is the safe choice. If you choose a freebie and something goes wrong (no matter if its the browser's fault or not), you are very exposed.
If I am a network admin in a large organization and I recommend IE and the machines get compromised, that's somehow a good career move? Or good for the network? On the other hand, if I point out to the IT manager that the government itself has said that IE is intrinsically insecure, am I not then doing my job (and I'll be doing this very thing soon if I can).
What it is a pathetically weak attempt to avoid doing your job, go with the flow, avoid responsibility, nobody ever got fired for chosing ibm, now ms. But maybe they should be.
Keep in mind that no matter how good you are as a network admin right now, if you are running w2k clients with IE browsers your network is currently fully exposed to the current threat.
IE is also a freebie, but a freebie you can't do much about in terms of securing it due to structural concerns. Mozilla was a multibillion dollar project until it was abandoned by AOL last year. Not quite a freebie. You'll note also that many of the security fixes that have come out are available only in Windows XP service pack 2, if I read that right. Which means what if you're using w2k pro, which many corporations are in fact doing, since there is no real reason to up(sic)grade to windows XP.
MS's auto hide function is one of my least favorite features
One thing we agree on! I never use it, but I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of ordinary users think it's cute. It means they can avoid the 'difficult' task of organizing their bookmarks. Possibly it's a market winner.
Most people only use things straight out of the box. I bet you have your PC organised, with day-to-day shortcuts in your task bar and everything else organised in your Start menu (that is if you use Windows). But what do you see in the average PC? Nothing is organised and the desktop is awash with icons. MS and IE caters for those (the majority) who don't want to have anything to do with something they deem 'techie'.
So why aren't you worried about blaming MS for this, or being held accountable when you urge the user to keep using IE?, when you are worried about some future possible blame for some future possible security hole in Mozilla?
I don't advise anybody to use anything. All I was initially pointing out is that the 1% increase in Firefox takeup is not a big deal. I wonder what the real proportion is? For every 100 people who download Firefox during a certain period, how many people buy a new PC pre-loaded with Windows and IE? Or an IE clone such as NJStar? If you consider the user explosion in Asia, I bet it's considerably more.
What it is a pathetically weak attempt to avoid doing your job, go with the flow, avoid responsibility, nobody ever got fired for chosing ibm, now ms. But maybe they should be.
Ah, utopia! Would it were so! But in the real world (corporate or politics) anybody who wants to get on covers their ass and never, ever, sticks their neck out.
mozilla is not part of the OS like IE is
Ever since IE4, you have been able to get clone-versions of the latest IE that run stand alone. NJStar is one but there are probably others.
I don't know what you mean here, to find a bookmark takes the following, in opera, ie, or firefox:
click bookmarks, move mousedown folders, follow folder hierarchy to reach desired bookmark, click on bookmark.
That's true if you use Firefox dropdown bookmarks and as long as you can put up with having to search for each folder, subfolder, or bookmark as you mouseover. Because they are unsorted and never in a logical place.
To find them sorted you have to click on Manage Bookmarks, then click to expand the folder, then click to expand the subfolder, etc. In fact with a multi-level hierarchy it's more than two clicks.
But what do you see in the average PC? Nothing is organised and the desktop is awash with icons. MS and IE caters for those (the majority) who don't want to have anything to do with something they deem 'techie'.
All too sadly true. But the odd thing is, when I show clients/friends the better way to do it, they love it, and insist I help them set up every subsequent machine in this power user mode. Just because they have better things to do with their time than pc geeking doesn't mean they don't appreciate the results of that geekwork. Show a standard user tabbed browsing and mousenavigation and they won't go back, not willingly.
There will always be this huge gap between power users and default users, there's nothing that can be done about that, but if the default software already has easy to use power user features, that's a step.
I don't put much creedence in those browser stats, they vary too much site to site, as I've pointed out before, the stats I want to see are the following:
ebay
amazon
yahoo
Those three sites would give a realworld estimate of browser useage, all other stat gathering sites depend on too many factors, for example google tends to get more tech savy users since it is the default search engine of the tech savy, as a rule, and the tech savy also tend to do a lot more searches than most others.
Without those stats I can't ever know what the realworld market shares are, the numbers can vary by far too many percent, but those three sites would give an excellent base number.
For example, the initial number, 95.7, doesn't make much sense, Mac has between 3-4 percent, Netscape 4 hovers between 1 and 2 percent, Opera between 1/2 and 1%, Netscape/Mozilla between 2-5% from what I've seen, so already I don't trust that initial result. And those numbers vary massively depending on what kind of site it is.
