Mozilla 1.0 released

prefs, you say? Internet, aye? "I hear the Internet is on computers now."

Okay, it's getting late.

nkuvu likes text, huh? Believe me, if I could use lynx as my main browser, I'd do it in a flash . text-only webpages rock.

Well, thanks for the suggestions.

And now, to sleep, perchance to dream (probably about fire-breathing lizards and taxicabs, after all of this :p ). :D
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
sure homer, i would gladly be your sponser. nkuvu has already got you working on part of the fourth step - learning to use the prefs. i would let nkuvu be your sponser as he is very good at this kind of thing but he will eventually lead you down the path of staring at sheets of text and make you believe that pictures are for sissies.:p
Click to expand...
Hey, don't paint me the wrong color, Ed. :) I never said I use a text-only browser. Someone asked what would be fastest, and that'd be text-only. They didn't ask "What's the fastest browser that isn't text-only?" in which case I really don't know. OW is my browser of choice.

I am one of those people who wishes for a million preferences. It's always a case of "This is nice, but I wish it would let me change this"... Whatever this may be.
 
ok, ok... i was wrong again. that's a new record for me - twice in one day:D :rolleyes:

you just love playing with our minds don't you?:p (please promise you won't bounce mine tooooo hard;) )
 
Okay Ed, here's a question for you.

You dislike Mozilla because the development benefits AOL. edit: unsubstantiated rumors of negotiations between AOL and Red Hat suckered me --> Now that AOL has acquired Red Hat, do you recommend that I dump Red Hat in favor of another Linux distro? Furthermore, should I discontinue using Linux altogether because development of Linux will benefit AOL?

Maybe this topic has been covered elsewhere. If so, pardon me. And I can move this elsewhere if someone minds. :)
 
What? Did I miss something? When did AOL acquire RedHat? I heard rumors on Slashdot that it was talking to RedHat about using Linux to run the AOL network at its headquarters.
 
i also have problems with Ed's argument.... virtually any product or service is tied to some company or company practice you'd rather not be affiiliated with.

like watching ESPN? you are making $ for Disney.

like Chipotle mexican grill restaurants? you are making $ for McDonalds.

like Nike shoes? you are aiding sweatshop owners.

like Starbucks coffee? you are aiding deforestation and agricultural polution....


it goes on and on... not using a particular web browser versus another because it is R&D for another company just seems trivial to me.

:confused:
 
Okay, beg pardon. It seems I succumbed to someone else's tale about Red Hat. Dunno what I was thinking. "But if it's on TV it MUST be true!" (same goes for Internet, I would think, for Mr Simpson).

Nonetheless, the issue remains. If AOL were to acquire Red Hat (as a certain rumor stated that suckered me) what then?

Good points, rinse. I await Ed's response!
 
My two penneth worth...

I totally agree with Ed on one thing; speed is not the thing that matters most. I would put functionality first. Does the browser do what you want / need it to do? My principles tell me that I don't want to use M$. Unfortunately my needs dictate otherwise. If want to bank online I need to use IE. If I want to administer my domain without beating my head against a wall with frustration I need to use IE. If I want to administer my DSL line I need to use IE on a PC. Now I could use IE for these things, and an alternative browser for everything else, but why would I want to? I already use four different OS at work, and three at home; I'm not looking to make things any more difficult.

Open standards are good. Remember the roots of HTML. Your markup is supposed to be platform independant. It's supposed to be written in a way that doesn't assume someone is looking at it on a display. Would it not be better to focus attentions on web sites, and not web browsers? If the users encouraged web developers to use the standards the big companies would not be able lock others out in this way. This site for one could probably use a bit of scrutiny on it's HTML.

This does bring up a bit of a dilemma. In the same way that monopolies can stifle innovation, so can standards. If you can't do something new without agreeing on it with everyone else first innovation gets stifled.

One last point about ads. Another dilemma. I don't mind paying reasonable prices for services I value, but the fact of the matter is that many of the sites I visit are non commercial. Advertising revenues keep them alive. I hate ads, hence I want to block them. This drives under the some of the site I want to see. Here is my compromise. See it a guide to advertising politely.

1. Absolutely no pop overs or pop unders. This is just an in your face aggressive sell. In the same way that I won't go into a store where you are constantly harassed, I won't go to a web site that fills my screen with windows.

2. Banner ads are OK, as long as they do not flash. Nothing is more distracting than a page full of flashing or moving images. My own company is guilty of this (and over use of Flash), and I hate it. If the ads are still images I can choose to ignore them if I wish. You never know, if they are funny I might even read them.

That's my rant over.
 
Well, I haven't read the "big mozilla thread" where Ed lays out his objections to Mozilla. Maybe he's covered all of this already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top