- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Firefox may never hit 25 percent market share
|
|
|
Comments (44)
Firefox may never hit 25 percent ?
I disagree.
This week in Europe, Microsoft will have to make available the 'browser ballot' in every new windows build.
This mean their users will be given the option to switch from Internet Explorer to any alternative browser.
I'm sure Firefox will benefit from this.
that is, if they upgrade first, which is not sure.
Firefox has had a dip over a 3 month period and we already have someone with his hands ready to sound the death knell?
My prediction: Firefox figures will surge when V4 is released.
Can somebody wake me up when firefox has been in decline for over a 12 month period?
My prediction: Firefox figures will surge when V4 is released.
Can somebody wake me up when firefox has been in decline for over a 12 month period?
r_a --
That would be nice -- but only if it means that somebody has fixed the memory appetite of the Linux version.
Related -- I hear javascript has been sped up on recent versions, but haven't had a chance to see for myself.
True? False?
That would be nice -- but only if it means that somebody has fixed the memory appetite of the Linux version.
Related -- I hear javascript has been sped up on recent versions, but haven't had a chance to see for myself.
True? False?
JavaScript? What's that?
Oh, you mean that stuff I disable on mine.
Oh, you mean that stuff I disable on mine.
NetApps stats are US centric.
Look at AT internet institute (former Xitimonitor) and you will find Firefox already has a 29% market share in Europe.
Worldwide Firefox probably already hit 25%.
So the title is wrong, it should have been 'FF doesn't hit 25% NetApps market share'.
Look at AT internet institute (former Xitimonitor) and you will find Firefox already has a 29% market share in Europe.
Worldwide Firefox probably already hit 25%.
So the title is wrong, it should have been 'FF doesn't hit 25% NetApps market share'.
I'm one of the defectors
18 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:When something is half open but advertized as being open I will avoid it if possible.hmm. dunno, I'm having a hard time working up any righteous indignation about this issue. maybe I'm missing something? So, you're saying that google claims that the chrome browser is open source, but the source isn't in fact available? If that's not the issue, exactly what is?
Quoting:Chrome? How open is it really?
Chrome? It doesn't matter. Chromium? You can check for yourself on its project page how open it is: http://code.google.com/intl/pl/chromium/
I am using FF and Chrome about 50-50 now I must admit. They both have their advantages for me. I tend to do my work surfing in FF and my non-work surfing in Chrome but then I am in Chrome now as I write this so..uhh..yeah.
@Scott isnt it nice to know that google knows that you did it too?
That alone should remove any doubts as to if using it is appropriate. If the answer is yes, then hey, I guess security isnt one of the reasons you use linux. Chrome has innovated a few things, FF was smart enough to implement them as well. Page isolation being the big one.
That alone should remove any doubts as to if using it is appropriate. If the answer is yes, then hey, I guess security isnt one of the reasons you use linux. Chrome has innovated a few things, FF was smart enough to implement them as well. Page isolation being the big one.
Quoting:Chrome has innovated a few things, FF was smart enough to implement them as well. Page isolation being the big one.Has FF implemented page isolation? I've never used Chrome or Chromium, but I always considered page isolation to be their most tempting feature, so I'd be really happy to know if FF has implemented it, too.
az,
Don't be such a grouch. Google has your best interests in mind and when they err they apologize promptly: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/google_responds_to_priv... So what's your worry. Chrome now, ChromeOS and Android for everything else. Who needs Linux and that flossing stuff?
YBT
Don't be such a grouch. Google has your best interests in mind and when they err they apologize promptly: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/google_responds_to_priv... So what's your worry. Chrome now, ChromeOS and Android for everything else. Who needs Linux and that flossing stuff?
YBT
Quoting:Who needs Linux and that flossing stuff?Why, google, for one!
Herz,
Linux is just a foundation to walk on, once Google is finished piling the dirt on top you will never know it was there.
YBT
Linux is just a foundation to walk on, once Google is finished piling the dirt on top you will never know it was there.
YBT
TxtEdMacs - I dunno, it's pretty hard to hide all that power. If you put a 426 mopar hemi in a nissan pickup, you can cover the engine with mud, but still there's no mistaking it.
Tracking or no tracking Azer, once you can Google yourself and you are the first thing that comes up does it matter? I am not worried about what may or may not be on record in my name with Google, I have been using G-mail, Docs, Reader and Calendar every day for 3+ years now. If I wanted to hide from anyone I have done a terrible job doing it..;-)
@CB it's in the current FF4alpha
Quoting:@CB it's in the current FF4alphaThanks - I'll have to do some homework on that.
@CB, it's coming even earlier than I thought. SMK has a blurb on it.
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2010/03/mozilla-lands-o...
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2010/03/mozilla-lands-o...
@az - That's certainly good news, and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but it's my understanding that there are two different types of isolation on the horizon: plugin isolation and global page isolation. Plugin isolation will be rolled out first, and it will prevent one bad plugin from crashing the entire browser. Then, later on, global page isolation will isolate each tab from the others, to prevent one bad site from crashing the entire browser.
Not being 100% up to speed on it, just coming from random readings while scouring the net for something interesting, I think thats correct.
Yup, I used that exact same rigorous research methodology. ;)
Quoting:google claims that the chrome browser is open source, but the source isn't in fact available? If that's not the issue, exactly what is?
Open source is less important these days. Consider this: -Windows is open source, -TiVo software is open source, -LiMo is open source, -Android is open source, -XMMS was open source. -OOXML is open source. -Mono is open source.
In case someone didn't know: -Windows is open source, but only to selected parties such as the Russian / Chinese government, -TiVo is open source, but not everybody can change the code and still have it work on the TiVo device -LiMo uses open source software, but the platform is considered 'closed' as only companies which are LiMo members are supposed / able to change source code, -Android is open source which means you can get and study the source. However, the project is rather closed as not everybody can contribute and it's not transparent what's done with user input and filed bugs. -XMMS was open source, but only the three developers were able / allowed to commit new code. -OOXML is open source (well, at least 98% of it), meaning you can get the specs. However, it was "code dumping", meaning it didn't came into existence as open source. Some huge project that didn't came into existence as "open source" but was later 'open sourced' (Java maybe?) is not really 'workable open source'. -Mono is open source, but it isn't the Mono project that decides on future features, because most of the time it will include new features Microsoft puts in Silverlight.
Mainly, 'open source' is used as an excuse by companies these days to claim something is 'open' while they still remain in full control. So open source is not that interesting. IMHO, "open source" as we used to know it is dead. There are many grades in how open something is, and those need to be taken in consideration as well.
If a project and its development are 'open', that's what's important. Examples: -Are discussions open? For OOXML, the ECMA discussions are closed. -Is everybody able to add to the discussion of future roadmaps and 'vote' for changes? For OOXML, non - corporate entities can't steer where it goes. -Is the bug handling process open? For Android, you file a bug to a black box and something might come out of it, you can't change the process in the black box however. -Is the project / entity which produces the software an open entity? Sun, Microsoft, Google etc. are not open entities like for example Debian etc.
So, Opera is closed, its company is, OK, I can live with it. Debian is open, the entity which makes Debian is open, OK, can live with it.
But things like OOXML, Mono, Android, Chrome(ium?) etc. are advertized as "open", though only the source is open. I have my doubts about these projects, most of the time only the source code is open.
I use the term "visible source" when one can see and study the code, but not modify it. Freedom 1 of the Free Software Definition is incomplete in this case.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
@Gus: Alternatively, the term "Free Software" starts to make sense again. Something can be open source but not free software.
Sander -
I have gone back to using "Free Software" for several years now, for a variety of reasons.
The best, to my mind, is related to the problem you described. "Open Source", as a marketing pitch, is a to businesses, but a geek pitch, emphasizing something that geeks care about and which, in the end, isn't even the most important aspect of free software.
Yes -- it is important that you can see the code.
It is important that you can modify the code, but those are both components of the freedom that actually most to a business: the ability to use the software (which includes the ability to modify it as needed) to make your business run better, more efficiently, and/or more profitably.
I've used free software in corporate settings for years, and only rarely did I ever have to modify code. The freedom to bring up copies when and where we needed, to incorporate them into streams of tasks, to put them on big and small machines, to pilot ideas without having to go through legal, financial, or contract hoops is a very big deal.
I have gone back to using "Free Software" for several years now, for a variety of reasons.
The best, to my mind, is related to the problem you described. "Open Source", as a marketing pitch, is a to businesses, but a geek pitch, emphasizing something that geeks care about and which, in the end, isn't even the most important aspect of free software.
Yes -- it is important that you can see the code.
It is important that you can modify the code, but those are both components of the freedom that actually most to a business: the ability to use the software (which includes the ability to modify it as needed) to make your business run better, more efficiently, and/or more profitably.
I've used free software in corporate settings for years, and only rarely did I ever have to modify code. The freedom to bring up copies when and where we needed, to incorporate them into streams of tasks, to put them on big and small machines, to pilot ideas without having to go through legal, financial, or contract hoops is a very big deal.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post