General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2195744

    Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

    Locked

    by deepsand ·

    A group calling themselves “Explorer Destroyer” has undertaken an active campaign to get users to download FF via the Google Toolbar.

    While there is nothing wrong with their goal, I take issue with their tactics on 2 points, both of which treaten net neutrality.

    1) The referenced “dead serious” approach creates a de facto split in the net along browser lines; and,
    2) Google seems to being a willing participant.

    Read the article & give us your comments.

    ==================================================
    Topics > Internet & Networking > Browsers > Mozilla >

    [b]Firefox Backers Create ‘Destroy IE’ Campaign[/b]

    ‘Explorer Destroyer’ movement takes aim at Microsoft’s browser.

    Elizabeth Montalbano, IDG News Service
    Tuesday, April 25, 2006

    SAN FRANCISCO — A group of self-titled “political activists” in Massachusetts has started an aggressive campaign to get browser users to switch from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer to Mozilla’s Firefox.

    Taking advantage of a new program by Google, the campaign, called Explorer Destroyer, pays users $1 for each referral to Firefox made through Google Toolbar, according to the group’s Web site.

    “You already want people to switch to Firefox. Now’s the time to get serious about it,” according to the site. “Google is paying $1 for each new Firefox user you refer….Now you can advance your ideals, save people from popups and spyware hell, and make some serious money.”

    Google did not return calls seeking comment for this story, but the search giant offers a standard $1 per user referral fee to Web sites that generate new downloads of Firefox with the Google Toolbar.

    How It Works
    According to the Explorer Destroyer Web site, the group offers Web-site owners scripting technology that detects whether a visitor is running IE. If so, an alert will appear advising the visitor to download Firefox so they can either view the site better or view it at all. Whenever a visitor to a Web site using the group’s technology switches to Firefox from IE, the owner of the Web site will get the referral fee if they have signed up for Google’s AdSense program.

    There are three types of alerts site owners can put on their page–“gentle encouragement,” “semi-serious,” or “dead serious.”

    If a Web site owner chooses “gentle encouragement,” site visitors who are using IE will see a banner across the top of the page that encourages them to download Firefox. A “semi-serious” site will put up a splash page encouraging a user to download Firefox, with a link for downloading Mozilla’s browser as well as a link to the Web site.

    Those who choose the “dead serious” alert actually block users with IE from viewing the page, informing them they must install Firefox to view the site. View a demo of what happens when a user clicks on a site with this rating.

    Why Attack IE?
    In addition to the Explorer Destroyer Web site, where users can download the scripts for their sites and get more information, the group also has launched another Web site that parodies IE and provides users with reasons why they should switch to Firefox.

    One reason for switching, according to the site? “It will make Bill Gates soooooooooo mad.” “Seriously–super, super mad,” the site goes on to say. “And even more than Bill, let’s think about Steve ‘I’m going to … kill Google’ Ballmer for a second. If there’s anyone that’s going to absolutely blow a gasket when they see this Web site, it will be him.”

    Other reasons the site offers for switching from IE to Firefox include: “Reduce your weekly family and friends tech support load to eight hours”–a reason that pokes fun at various problems users encounter when using IE–and “If we knew Web designers would hurl themselves off it, we wouldn’t have put the Golden Gate bridge so close to San Francisco,” which cites developer difficulties in making Web sites IE-compatible.

    The Explorer Destroyer group did not immediately respond to an e-mail requesting an interview Tuesday.

    A Mozilla spokesperson declined to comment on the group’s efforts, and Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3150831

      nope, they have not gone far enough.

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      the download should be to lynx not firefox, then they could kill this multimedia shite on websites as well.

      and yup, I actually sent them an email stating that until the link is available for lynx, the campaign is a waste of time, since no real website requires anything but basic text capability in a browser.

      • #3149731

        Hear, hear. We don’t need no stinkin’ peectures.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to nope, they have not gone far enough.

        In fact, let’s go even further, and return to the days of BBS’s, and FIDO!

        Long live DOS.

        • #3149435

          You have Internet smello-vision?

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Hear, hear. We don’t need no stinkin’ peectures.

          How do they transmit the smells with those “stinkin’ peectures”? And how do you replicate them locally from your computer?

          Must be a real hassle with some of those pictures of garbage dumps and political speeches (most of that hot air really stinks).

        • #3149423

          Just arrived in time for deja vu

          by oneamazingwriter ·

          In reply to You have Internet smello-vision?

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194068&messageID=2002657

          This wave length stuff is better than anything digital!

          :^0

        • #3149408

          day ja view – no today is Monday my time

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Just arrived in time for deja vu

          and it is easily viewed once you turn the light on – currently 4 am.

          Wave length stuff moves quick as it moves the length of the waves.

          Speaking of speed.

          Four men were sitting around a conference room table being interviewed for a job. The interviewer asked, “What is the fastest thing you know of?”

          Pointing to the man on his right.

          The first man replied, “A thought … It pops into your head, there’s no forewarning that it’s on the way … It’s just there. A Thought is the fastest thing I know of.”

          “That’s very good!” Replied the interviewer. “And now you …. Sir,” He asked the second man.

          “Hmmm . Let me see, a blink! It comes and goes and you don’t know it ever happened. A blink is the fastest thing I know of.”

          “Excellent!” Said the interviewer. “The blink of an eye . That’s a very popular clich? for speed.” He then turned to the third man who was contemplating his reply.

          “Well, out on my Dad’s ranch, you step out of the house and on the wall there is a light switch … When you flip that switch, way across the pasture the light at the barn comes on in an instant. Turning on a light is the fastest thing I can think of.”

          The interviewer was very impressed with the third answer and thought he had found his man. “It’s hard to beat the speed of light.” He said. Turning to the fourth man, a Newfoundlander, he posed the same question.

          “After hearing the three previous answers … It’s obvious to me that the fastest thing known is diarrhea,” Said the Newfie.

          “What!” Said the interviewer … Stunned by the response.
          “Oh … I can explain,” Said the Newfie. “You see, the other day I wasn’t feeling so well and ran for the bathroom. But, before I could think, blink, or turn on the light … I shit my pants. .

          He got the job!

        • #3149415

          Thanks for the hint; I’ve been wondering where those strange odors …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You have Internet smello-vision?

          have been coming from! They’ve been driving me and the dog crazy.

          I finally decided that some kind of wildlife had taken shelter somewhere within the walls of my house and perished there.

          You saved me the grief and aggrevation of having to call in a specialist to locate and remove it.

          I owe you big time for the heads up.

        • #3162991

          I miss the bbs days

          by vlape ·

          In reply to Hear, hear. We don’t need no stinkin’ peectures.

          hmmmm the days of mudd…. many moons ago my local bbs had 15 lines. It was the coolest thing around. then again dialing into the library and seeing what books were available was a great pass time too….. where did the 80’s go

        • #3162925

          There was something viscerally satisfying about …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I miss the bbs days

          figuring out the the correct settings re. parity, no. of stop bits, etal., and succeeding in making contact with another machine, all at the whooping speed of 300 baud!

          Bring back FIDO!

        • #3161962

          Not possible

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to There was something viscerally satisfying about …

          FIDO has unfortunately been put down.

          But 7,1,even is engraved on my brain…

        • #3161938

          And, let’s not forget Genie.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not possible

          Or, the original Delphi, at 800-365-4636.

        • #3158044

          Play Misty…

          by lunekeltkar ·

          In reply to I miss the bbs days

          …for me. Dang, I haven’t been this nostalgic since, oh I don’t know, yesterday. Where in tarnation did I put those Commodores (Lionel and 64)? v, deep, nick, stop by sometime and I’ll buy you a beer, just for the pastime of it.

          Lune

        • #3155807

          TR Museum?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Play Misty…

          Based on countless posts here, it’s obvious that a lot of us go way back to the yesteryears of computing, when IT was known as DP. We may very well collectively have the makings of a first class museum of old computers, etal..

          Enjoy that beer.

        • #3155764

          or of old computer geeks…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to TR Museum?

          “Our next exibit depicts the species ‘operatus satanus,’ also known in acronymic speech as the BOFH, seated at the console of an IBM 360 Model 30 mainframe computer.”

        • #3156325

          Could be worse, such as a Mod 20, with …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to or of old computer geeks…

          a Multi-Function Card Transport, aka the Motherf***ing Card Mulcher.

        • #3156270

          Relics

          by lunekeltkar ·

          In reply to TR Museum?

          Deep,

          I would be in willing to participate in such a project. Over the years I’ve collected DP/IT stuff that I haven’t been able to make myself throw away. As I recall, a (now retired) IT guy from our college has a pretty substantial storage building filled with wonderful relics. I wonder if any quality tech museums already exist. I feel that there must be, but I haven’t heard of any. I’ll poke around.

          Lune

        • #3156240

          One such was started last year.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Relics

          But, I don’t recall either its name or location.

          There’s as good chance that such was mentioned here in one of the regular contributors’ columns, but, given the primitive naure of the Search function here, locating such may be damned near impossible.

          If I come anything, I’ll try to remember to let you know.

          It the meanwhile, enjoy your old “stuff.”

          PS – I’ve a copy, somewhere, of 2-tape Autocoder on cards; now, if I could just find an IBM 1401, with card reader, printer and tape drives, in working order, I’d get back to assembly language programming in ernest. Hell, I’d even settle for a 1620!

      • #3158045

        Text Titillation

        by lunekeltkar ·

        In reply to nope, they have not gone far enough.

        If “no real website requires anything but basic text,” then why the hokey picture by your name?

        Lune

    • #3150815

      No not far enough – they have not started

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      compulsory bundling with new hardware and the like.
      It will be interesting to see the MS response to this as it is nowhere near as aggressive and intrusive as the MS methods.

      • #3149740

        So, you support the idea of a Balkanized net?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to No not far enough – they have not started

        Consider the ramifications.

        At the least, a user whould be faced with the need to install and maintain multiple browsers.

        Driven to extremes, the net would devolve into a Tower of Babble.

        • #3149730

          you mean it isn’t already Balkanized?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to So, you support the idea of a Balkanized net?

          I prefer to use Firefox, but am required to use IE to do business with certain companies and Netscape to do business with other companies.

          Sounds a lot like Balkanization to me…

        • #3149543

          In large part, the blame for that might be laid at the feet of …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to you mean it isn’t already Balkanized?

          site developers who fail to adhere to standards.

          Far too many have become enthralled with cute little tricks that work on one browser only, with the result that their sites fail to function properly under all browsers.

          It’s the not unusual case of people forgetting that form is supposed to [i]follow[/i] function, not the other way around.

          In addition, many businesses settle on a standard browser for their operations, [b]not[/b] for the purposes of denying content based on one’s browser of choice, but so as to minimize support costs..

        • #3149541

          What is more likely to remind them that form *follows* function?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to In large part, the blame for that might be laid at the feet of …

          What is more likely to remind web page kiddies that form [i]follows[/i] function than users who have a bit more knowledge of browsers, html, scripts, etc.? My impression is that the average MS customer doesn’t notice or have the technical knowledge to understand your comment that form is not following function, thus don’t care about that or most of the techs’ arguments about the best browser. Why should they? I hope $1/Firefox download reduces FUD a tad.

        • #3149535

          I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to What is more likely to remind them that form *follows* function?

          I [b]do[/b] have a problem with those sites offering the downloads that refuse to provide content if I’m not using FF at the moment!

          And, it is not the users’ responsibilty to insure that form follows function, it is that of the developers.

        • #3149523

          Don’t deal with those sites

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Get the real deal from the source:

          http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

        • #3149514

          Nope; been there, did’nt work.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Without Javascripting functional, the download links are not displayed.

        • #3149346

          Well, then

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Sorry, I had no idea you were attempting to do this with no scripting support whatsoever. While I don’t use ActiveX, DirectX, Flash, or Shockwave, I do have both Java & javascript active.

        • #3149340

          So what?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Why should it bother you if some people don’t want IE traffic? Frankly, it occurs to me that blocking IE traffic might be considered a security configuration, since IE users are far more likely to have infected computers that could be used to further spread malware to web servers and otherwise cause problems for webmasters. This ad campaign is a lot better than its absence, even for IE users, because simply blocking access without a word won’t let them in: at least the ad campaign gives them the opportunity to get a browser that’s not blocked.

          If you insist on using IE, just don’t visit those websites. It’s their loss, if you would have provided them traffic and business they want.

          Finally, of course, there’s this: you don’t have to block IE users from your site to participate in this ad campaign. There’s an option to do nothing but stick a prominent banner on the page that only shows to IE users and doesn’t interfere with use of the website at all. What’s the big deal?

          There’s no reason to make a mountain out of a molehill over this.

        • #3149303

          users’ responsibility & developers’ responsibility

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Developers do what their bosses tell them to do. Software companies take their cues from users’ wishes, or from users’ indifference and the ability of the marketing profession to manufacture “demand”, depending on the nature of the users in general. As a user, I have the option of switching to a better browser, or trying to make one. I’d like to have a good browser made for me, but that doesn’t appear to be one of my options.

          ]:)

        • #3148317

          Re. “So what?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          I’ve no problem with options 1 & 2; and, I’ve said nothing to suggest that I did.

          As for IE users vs FF users, I take issue with the suggestion that FF users are [i]inherently[/i] more security conscious. Bear in mind that many, if not the larger portion, have downloaded it simply because it’s free, it’s new, and/or they dislike MS.

          Furthermore, it’s easy to chant the anti-MS mantra, but, in practice, most people who require the net for executing their job related responsibilities do [b]not[/b] have a choice as to which browser they use.

        • #3148314

          Re. “Users’ responsibilites.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          “[i]Software companies take their cues from users’ wishes[/i]???”

          We’re talking about web [b]site design[/b], not applications. Since when did site designers start seeking user input before they loaded their sites up with every bell & whistle imaginable?

          The sad fact is that far too many developers never learned anything about usability. Why? Because most of them of are wet behind the ears, and either lack experienced guidance, or choose to ignore it.

        • #3148279

          re: “So what?” response

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          1. I never said that Firefox users were inherently more security conscious. It’s true that, in general, Firefox users tend to be more security conscious, but it is in no way axiomatic, and I never suggested it was. My point is that IE users’ computers are more likely to be infected — and that’s just a statistical fact.

          2. I suspect your statement that “most” people who interact with the Web for business purposes require IE. It’s true that “some” do, but “most”, if it was ever the case, has ceased to be an accurate statement. The fact that most [b]do[/b] use IE does not translate to most [b]needing to[/b] use IE.

        • #3148272

          Re: “Users’ responsibilities” reply

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          DS, you left out “…or from users’ indifference and the ability of the marketing profession to manufacture “demand”,” which leaves the remainder of that sentence, the fragment that you quoted, a defenseless straw man. Come on, man, I’ve seen you do much better! I’m sure you were in a hurry so I won’t belabor the point. When I want to start a flame war, I’ll start it with somebody who more consistently annoys me.

        • #3148163

          You’re right Deepsand – some people have no

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          choice at work and I know of one company that has two staff dedicated to going around their 700 employees and fixing the viruses and other damage done from using MSIE as their corporate web browser and it auto runs so much damaging crap. The USA HQ refuses to let them run anything else as they have some sort of special arrangement with MS. One small section of 50 people was sold off about 12 months ago and they immediately switched to OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird on their Wndows XP – service calls dropped to 5% of the previous 12 months.

          Life’s little TR mystery – Why does the Maximum message depth have to kick in just when a sub thread discussion gets interesting?

        • #3163183

          Re. “So what?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          I did not say that anyone needed a specific browser. Rather, I said that at work, most have no choice in the matter.

          See Deadly Ernest’s post directly above this one.

        • #3163180

          Re. “Users’ responsibilites.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          No, I deliberately omitted the portion that you reference, as I consider it irrelevant to my point regarding web sites & their developers.

          I do not consider web sites to be software applications, but publications. That they may be interactive, and may incorporate the use of true applications, does not alter the fact that they are firs and foremost publications.

          As with all publications, it is the sole responsibility of the author to ensure that his work is readable, clear, understandable and unambiguous.

        • #3163179

          Ernest – re. nesting depth.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          I think that TR has an algorithm for determining the “interest level” in a given thread, based in part on the number of different members posting to it, and [b]reduces[/b] the allowable depth so as to maximize our level of aggrevation.

        • #3163175

          re: “most users”

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          “[i]most people who require the net for executing their job related responsibilities do not have a choice as to which browser they use.[/i]”

          That’s what you said. The implication, from that context, is that people require use of a given browser based on their job related responsibilities. You mentioned executing job related responsibilities, requiring such functionality, and not having a choice in browser. You did not mention anything about managerial policy, et cetera.

          You commented in response to Absolutely about the author of an online publication having the responsibility of clearly communicating his ideas. You might take your own advice.

        • #3162827

          Re. “Most users”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Your reply leaves me baffled.

          By “users” I plainly mean “end users,” i.e. those that actually use a browser, [b]not[/b] the organization which decides which browser thay will use.

          I stand full square behind my position that most users have no choice in the browser that they use at work.

        • #3162814

          Re: Most Users

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Most employers specifically forbid the end user from downloading & installing software. Since IE is embedded in the OS, it is the mandatory browser for corporate America by default.

        • #3162811

          Re. “Most users”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          This apotheon knows, but seems to be reluctant to acknowledge. He clings to the ideal that the end users can & should rise up to overthrow the evil empire.

          That’s an easy position to take when you’re the master; not so easy when you are the hireling.

        • #3162777

          Your memory is short.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          I never denied that corporate policy typically allows end users to download and install software willy-nilly.

          I never denied that the majority of corporate desktops are pretty much stuck with IE from the end user’s perspective.

          I never said that anyone should “rise up” in revolt to overthrow any “evil empire”.

          Either substantively respond to the points that I have made or shut the hell up. Straw men and fallacies of argumentum ad ridiculum prove nothing.

        • #3162750

          Some companies use FireFox as their default browser

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          [b]some[/b] companies manage to catch on that FireFox is better than IE. I suspect that those are the same companies that listen to their IT people.

        • #3163699

          I’ve no inclination to reply to deliberate manipulations of my statements.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          That’s a game you’ll need to play by yourself.

          Kadeetya vadoo, pyetik.

        • #3163690

          Whether it’s an application or a publication, its purpose is profit.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’ve no problem with the downloads.

          Its audience is the market. As long as the market bears the garbage that we here agree is garbage, the websites will continue to be made badly. I’d like for website designers, and application developers, to use the most secure, minimalist, utilitarian methods, classes, objects, etc., to accomplish the productive tasks for which I’m willing to use them. But I recognize that until the average-based “market” catches up to me, I’ll have to build my own apps, and shun most of the Internet. Yay open source!

        • #3149682

          No – I believe in an open net with universal standards

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to So, you support the idea of a Balkanized net?

          however, I also believe that when one organisation uses methods to pressure people into using their non-standard stuff they cannot complain about someone else using similar processes to counter them.

          As to the net being a tower of babble – IT ALREADY IS. How many web pages, and web site, require you to download corporate copyrighted plug ins to be able to view it all? How many use Java, PDF, Flash, Media Player files tec that use non-standard protocols and code to work the site. And if you don’t have them loaded, well you can’t see them.

          What really gets up my nose is when some hairbrained, idiot with a minus IQ uses some fancy program to build a web site in Java and each page has a scripts that call scripts that call scripts that call scripts and 75% or more are the same bloody scripts on every page. So ehwn you change pages you have to reload 75% or more of what you have just seen. Why don’t they learn to write code and use frames, or similar, so that crap stays there and only the new stuff is loaded.

          Why do they need 345 KB of scripts to load a page that takes 50 KB when converted to HTML?

          Yeah it already is a tower of babble.

        • #3149669

          Ditto on all of the above, and

          by pennatomcat ·

          In reply to No – I believe in an open net with universal standards

          don’t get me started on the multiple CSS hacks that it takes to display IE6 properly. I suspect that IE7 will initiate a whole new set of problems.

        • #3149538

          While I do wholeheartedly concur with your complaints, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No – I believe in an open net with universal standards

          that is not really the issue at hand.

          Sites that are ill designed are quite a different problem from those that [b]refuse to serve content[/b] simply because they do not endorse the browser that you are momentarily using.

          And, yes, I fault MS as well, for making Updates inaccessible if one’s not using IE. And, Mozilla’s download sites are equally guilty.

          I’ve a client with 2 XP machines that got clobbered by NAV, such that scripting, including Active X, and cryptographic services worked inder some apps but failed for others. The owner was not willing to pay to have the drives re-imaged, so I decided to install FF so that the users could at least complete most of their usual tasks with minimal disruption.

          All attempts to download FF failed because Active X was blocked!!!

          I was able to finally install FF only by remoting into another client’s machine, downloading FF to his box, and transferring the download via the remote connection.

          Why do I need Active X in order to get FF???

        • #3149488

          I think this may be a Wndows issue

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to While I do wholeheartedly concur with your complaints, …

          I have three XP boxes and two Linux boxes. Two of the Windows boxes have SP1 only and one had SP2 on it. Neither the Linux or the Xp SP1 boxes have Active X running and they all downloaded FF no worries from the Mozilla site. The one with SP2 had major issues until I added some MS security upgrades and turned Active X on.

          I have no idea why accessing the same site on the same day requires Active X on the box with Win XP Pro SP2 but not the ones with Win XP Pro SP1. However, this result points more to an operating system function than a site function.

        • #3149449

          Curiouser & curiouser.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I think this may be a Wndows issue

          For the Mozilla site, the problem that I ran up against seems to be JScript related.

          With scripting busted, the

        • #3149336

          Here we go again.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I think this may be a Wndows issue

          It sounds like Microsoft is intentionally sabotaging the ability of users to access the competition. It’s just more of the same ol’ anticompetitive business practices, I’d guess.

        • #3148311

          Then why not block ALL access to FF from IE?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          Your suggestion of a deliberate attempt by MS to block FF downloads pales in the light of the facts.

        • #3148277

          Plausible deniability?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          1. It’s more deniable in a court of law if you can blame it on a technical limitation or error.

          2. I find it ludicrous that, given Microsoft’s long and well-documented history of anticompetitive practices, you refuse to entertain the notion this might just be more of the same.

        • #3148269

          Or deniability due to incompetence?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          Would that be [b]better[/b] than a deliberate attempt to block FF, or would it just mean that Microsoft’s talent has all retired with $Millions in stock and they’re coding strategy is the “Shakespeare monkey”?

        • #3163178

          Re. “Plausible deniability”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          I simply refuse to resort to the old and tiresome conspiracy theories as the explanations for all things.

        • #3163174

          not just a theory

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          . . . and it’s not a conspiracy, since it’s just Microsoft.

          Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but Microsoft has been convicted many times in a number of different countries for anticompetitive and otherwise criminal and civil malfeasance. It’s a trend, not a theory.

        • #3163169

          Re. “Incompetence”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          Well, it’s certainly more plausible than the conspiracy theory!

        • #3162825

          Re. “Not just a theory”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          With regards to the problems downloading FF, where’s your proof that such are the results of deliberate actions on the part of MS.

          Absent such, your charge remains but mere speculation.

        • #3162776

          Proof?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          I never claimed it was anything [b]but[/b] speculation. I simply take issue with your absolute refusal to entertain the notion that perhaps, just perhaps, this is more of the same from Microsoft.

        • #3163695

          What a short memory you have.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          To quote you, “[i]It sounds like Microsoft is intentionally sabotaging the ability of users to access the competition.[i/]”

          Or, did you think you could simply disclaim this post and we’d be none the wiser?

          It’s time to grow up & face the real world.

        • #3163663

          Are you kidding?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          Does that look like an absolute claim of fact to you? Perhaps you didn’t notice the equivocating terms. Perhaps you’re too dumb to realize [b]that was speculation[/b], and I never intended it to be read as anything but.

          What exactly are you trying to prove with that quote?

        • #3162983

          Nothing equivocal about the 1st sentence.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          And, consistent with like claims that you’ve made in other discussions.

          They’re your words; now you must live with them.

        • #3162960

          Which first sentence is that?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          Do you refer to the one that you quoted at me? Perhaps you didn’t notice that it starts out “It sounds like”.

          Do you even know what “equivocal” means?

        • #3162926

          Game called owing to unsportsmanlike conduct.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          You have forfeited this debate, owing to your continued manipulation of any and all statements, both mine and your’s, so as to suit your pleasure of the moment.

          Game over.

        • #3162893

          Good excuse.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

          You go with that. Maybe people won’t notice that you quoted a statement that starts with words like “it sounds like”, then went on to claim there wasn’t any equivocation.

        • #3161973

          After review of the play, the call on the field stands.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Here we go again.

        • #3149485

          that’s odd, it doesn’t require activex for me.

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to While I do wholeheartedly concur with your complaints, …

          I just went there with lynx and it allowed me to download all versions no problem.

        • #3149451

          Which site?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to that’s odd, it doesn’t require activex for me.

          Different download sites have different requirements.

          The download page at http://www.mozilla.com/ contains the following source, whose function is to display the “Download Firefox” panel to the left of the image of a monitor.


          On the machines for which scripting was broken by NAV, not only was the

        • #3149428

          ahhh

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Which site?

          I used both the mozilla.org and getfirefox.com to test it.

          and the nosspan link looks fine. :p
          [ btw, javascript doesn’t run on my browsers, I remove that functionality, so the javascript on the page had no functionality for me either, I just never got the code spit at me. 🙂

      • #3163732

        AMEN!

        by ali40961 ·

        In reply to No not far enough – they have not started

        I was gonna reply to the original and say “How is that any different from what MS has done?” And I won’t get started on the degree MS has gone to to force things down our (my) throat. Ok so I lied.

        Let’s see….I’m not safe unless i keep my system patched……Ok so autoupdate keeps me updated. Then I find out MS Office won’t work correctly once patch was applied. And I don’t mean just a lil glitch. I mean tasks that took a sec now take 5 mins or more and lucky for me I found a workaround. (And it WASN’T FROM THE KB)

        Running a small business, using office products, requires that said product works 100%, 100% of the time. Lost productivity the coupla weeks while we waited for a fix? Sounds kinda like prison to me… And yes Virginia, i could migrate to Linux. With what time? And at what learning curve? No time as it is to do what I need to with products I know well. One day, i will! MS will piss me off bad enough I’ll say to hell with it and FORCE MYSELF.

        PS i already gave up IE. And Yes i use Firefox and mozilla. And sometimes even netscape and opera)

    • #3149542

      point 1 – split along browser lines

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      I don’t see it. Many sites & programs already require Microsoft’s ActiveX controls, including my security software suite by Symantec. Evidently, any business (and by assumption individual or any other collective) is permitted to present their data in whatever format they like. What’s the diff?

      • #3149536

        The difference is Browser vs Browser Helper Objects.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to point 1 – split along browser lines

        It is one thing to not use/not use a particular BHO. It is quite another to carte blanche deny content on the basis of the browser that one is momentarily using.

        As an analogy, the gas station attendant will not pump gasoline into your diesel driven vehicle, for reasons of compatibility; however, he will not refuse to fuel you vehicle because of the make, model, color, etc..

        And, the Mozilla download sites are hoist on their own petard, for requiring Active X in order to be able to download FF!

        See

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193963&messageID=2002543

        • #3149335

          not really

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The difference is Browser vs Browser Helper Objects.

          By requiring functionality (such as ActiveX) that only works with one browser (such as IE), you are effectively blocking people out based on what browser they use. So, again — what’s the difference?

        • #3148310

          The difference is obvious; it’s ALL as opposed to SOME.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to not really

        • #3148274

          How do you figure that?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The difference is obvious; it’s ALL as opposed to SOME.

          If your website requires ActiveX, then [b]nobody using a non-MS browser can access your website[/b]. Your statement is categorically false.

        • #3163163

          Incorrect.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to How do you figure that?

          1) Only those functions that depend on ActiveX are inaccessible; the rest of the site [b]is accessible[/b].

          2) ActiveX is [/b]not[/b] dependent on IE. In fact, an ActiveX extension for FF is available at

          http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/mozilla.htm

        • #3162773

          Address what I’ve actually said, please.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Incorrect.

          1. I said “If your website [b]requires[/b] ActiveX” (emphasis added). Maybe you missed that part. I don’t see how you could, though.

          2. That’s a scary thought. Thanks for letting me know such asinine nonsense exists. I really don’t think using a third-party hack to be able to access an ActiveX-based website really justifies the web developer’s intent of targeting IE, though — just as the ability of an IE user to turn off Javascript to circumvent the functionality of the “Explorer Destroyer” code doesn’t change the web developer’s intent of targeting non-IE browsers.

        • #3163697

          To repeat,…

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Incorrect.

          I’ve no inclination to reply to deliberate manipulations of my statements.

        • #3149235

          “hoist on their own petard”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The difference is Browser vs Browser Helper Objects.

          😀

          I think the gas station attendant will pump any type of fuel you request into your vehicle, and merrily charge you the market rate, then laugh at you when your engine melts if you use the wrong stuff. It’s your responsibility to RTFM and get the right fuel for your engine.

          I understand irritation at Mozilla, especially when you’re unable to download their browser using the competitor’s browser, unless you enable the competitor’s notoriously insecure ActiveX controls! But, in answer to the question have they gone [b]too far[/b], I say no, they are using convenience and money to motivate use of a tool that is [b]not[/b] made by Microsoft, for a curious role-reversal. It’s not as if they’re requiring PC manufacturers to use their browser, and only their browser, or else be denied use of the single most popular operating system in existence. THAT was going too far.

        • #3148306

          2 different issues co-mingled.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “hoist on their own petard”

          Firstly, just to get it out of the way, if the gas station pumped gasoline into your diesel car, he would be both in violation of safety regulations and legally negligent.

          As for Mozilla, I have made no suggestion that they are in any way responsible for the campaign under discussion.

          My posts re. problems with FF downloads were made to point out that those who seek to sever themselves from MS are, when they require MS features in order to procure their alternative offerings, guilty, no matter their intent, of practicing hypocrisy.

        • #3148271

          and yet

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to 2 different issues co-mingled.

          Most of the people I know using Firefox got it without allowing ActiveX to run just any old crap on the Web. I’ve seen people download it with a number of browsers that don’t even support ActiveX, even on OSes that don’t have ActiveX.

          If Microsoft is now preventing some IE downloads without use of ActiveX, while less up-to-date versions of IE and Windows continue to be able to download without problems, I’d hardly blame that on the Mozilla Foundation.

        • #3163159

          Once, again, issues mixed together.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to and yet

          1) I did [/b]not[/b] say that Mozilla required ActiveX, but that various download sites required specific BHOs.

          2) As for my problem with Mozilla, that revolves around JScript. See,
          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193963&messageID=2002674

      • #3149288

        Can a layman get in on this?

        by kniht ·

        In reply to point 1 – split along browser lines

        I’m impressed with the credentials of the respondents to this article. I am no IT Pro. or the like, but I do like to learn from those more knowledgable than I. My only credentials come from the fact that I am still picking shrapnel out of my body from the Nam war.
        According to Secunia FF has it’s share of vulnerabilities (not to mention it’s a resource hog). What gives this group, or M$ for that matter, the right to force it’s ideals on me!
        Although, seeing as to where this group is headquartered, it is no surprise.
        Definition of a liberal: Someone who knows what’s best for you, even better than you do.
        I guess I’ll get some reaction to this.

        • #3149252

          You mean the bickering?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Can a layman get in on this?

          Sure, welcome to the fray. Instead of shrapnel, you’ll be peppered with BS. Probably less painful, but possibly more difficult to identify & remove! 😉

          When you ask what gives this group the right to force its ideals on you, I assume you mean to refer to the organization promoting Firefox, as well as your clear reference to Microsoft. I respond, what gives you the idea that they are attempting to force anything on you? They have posted [b]their[/b] data on the Internet at [b]their[/b] expense. If they want that data only accessible via one browser, isn’t it [b]their[/b] right to choose how to do business, and even to have silly (to some people) requirements that will reduce their business volume?

          Did you fight defending freedom or communism in Nam?

        • #3148416

          Absolutely true

          by kniht ·

          In reply to You mean the bickering?

          This is true, I guess if they want to reduce their own buisness volume they have a right to cut their own throats.
          As far as what I fought for in Nam, neither freedom nor communism, I fought to keep myself and the men that were with me alive. Looks like the next fight for freedom may occur within our own borders if we don’t stop the lawyers we elect to Capitol Hill from violating our Constitution.

        • #3148268

          nice commentary

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Absolutely true

          I like you already.

        • #3148303

          The right to discriminate belongs to whom?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You mean the bickering?

          Would a store have the right to refuse your business based on the web browser you use?

          What if your referred browser were not the one that you use?

          What is you use multiple browsers, one of which is the store’s preference?

        • #3148267

          “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The right to discriminate belongs to whom?

          “This establishment will not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, military service, mental or physical attribute of any kind, etc., etc., etc.”

          That’s a good question, to which I have a good answer, but I won’t waste it on society, which has proven itself unwilling to practice it.

        • #3148217

          I actively discriminate against

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

          troublemakers and ars***les anyone else is welcome as long as their money is good.

        • #3162822

          I discriminate against the stupid.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I actively discriminate against

          The ignorant I tolerate.

        • #3162812

          As the saying goes…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I actively discriminate against

          Ignorance can be fixed; stupid is forever.

        • #3162808

          But, we can prevent its spread.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I actively discriminate against

          Might that earn us a Darwin Award?

          As I understand it, no, because 1) such would [b]not[/b] have been an act of stupidity; and 2) the act would not have been committed by the party who was removed from the gene pool.

        • #3162802

          Only through indirect action…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I actively discriminate against

          …such as removing all those common-sense warnings from the front pages of product manuals. You know the ones:

          Chainsaw: Do not attempt to stop blade with fingers.

          Electric curling iron: Do not use in shower.

        • #3148265

          Again: So what?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The right to discriminate belongs to whom?

          Perhaps you’re not familiar with the US Constitution. Find an online version and check the first, ninth, and tenth amendments: they collectively provide the basis for the Constitutionally protected freedom of association. If someone doesn’t want your money, there’s no justification for forcing them to take it.

        • #3163156

          “So what?” is NOT a substantive response.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Again: So what?

          And, I am more than amply familiar with the U.S. Constitution.

          Did I make any reference to it so as to suggest that issues of constitutionality were here involved? I think not.

        • #3162771

          What is your friggin’ problem?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “So what?” is NOT a substantive response.

          The obstinate refusal to recognize my actual points in this entire discussion, consistently and (apparently) deliberately trying to use strawmen to distract from the actual discussion, that you’ve displayed is really getting old.

          edit: typo fix

        • #3163694

          Pot calling kettle …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “So what?” is NOT a substantive response.

          You’re obviously looking in the mirror yet again.

          When will you learn?

        • #3163661

          How did we get in this sandbox?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “So what?” is NOT a substantive response.

          Your “I know you are, but what am I?” response is pretty pathetic.

        • #3162981

          See the Chaplain about getting your TS card punched.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “So what?” is NOT a substantive response.

          Frankly, I do’nt give a damn about your pathetic opinions.

        • #3148222

          Don’t know about the right to discriminate – but

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to The right to discriminate belongs to whom?

          they sure have the right to be stupid in how the turn away sales by not allowing them to find out about the business.

        • #3163155

          I thought that stupidity had been outlawed!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Don’t know about the right to discriminate – but

          That just serves to show how little I know.

        • #3162828

          Not by anybody that matters

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I thought that stupidity had been outlawed!

          Mother Nature still recognizes the right to be as stupid as you want to be. If you’re stupid enough, you earn a Darwin Award.

        • #3162764

          actually stupidity is enshrined in law

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I thought that stupidity had been outlawed!

          every time someone finds a new way to be exceedingly stupid the legislators enact a new law making it necessary for people to do things so that the stupid can not get hurt by this kind of stupidity again.

          For example idiots get hurt in cars because they have accidents when drunk, or speeding, or tired, or busy rading the paper instead of watching the road – do the legislators punish them for their stupidity, no – they enact laws making everyone go slower so that they wont get as badly hurt in the accidents as the cars are no going slower. The sensible solution would have been to enforce existing laws better and make licence testing harder and institute retesting more. But no that requires thought instead of a kneejerk reaction – anyway slow speeds means more likelihood of more speeders as the idiots who sped by at the higher sped will continue to speed, so they get more revenue to spend on legislator rorts.

        • #3148352

          Your definition of ‘liberal’ is right on the mark.

          by mustangj369 ·

          In reply to Can a layman get in on this?

          My favorite always was that a liberal was a conservative who hadn’t been mugged yet.

        • #3148302

          Well, then, does’nt that make Bush & his ilk liberals?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Your definition of ‘liberal’ is right on the mark.

          After all, they insist that they know what’s best for us!

        • #3148261

          In truth . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Well, then, does’nt that make Bush & his ilk liberals?

          The terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been so polluted in modern politics that they’re almost meaningless. I’d rather just use that definition for just about everyone in either party, and a fair number of the other parties out there, too.

        • #3148213

          blue arsed fly

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to In truth . . .

          Aussie word for politician

        • #3163151

          If by that you mean “meaningless,” I concur.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to In truth . . .

        • #3148260

          The literal definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” are not opposites.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your definition of ‘liberal’ is right on the mark.

          Liberal: in favor of freedom

          Conservative: in favor of stability, tradition & constancy.

          In 1776 a liberal government declared war on Britain, and the main point of contention in the early government was whether the United States should be more like a Greek democracy or a Roman republic. Neither side wanted to use the government to feed all the poor or use taxes to fund churches or legislate religious dogma. I think every last one of the great men who signed the Declaration of Independence would be heartbroken to see what has become of their grand experiment.

        • #3148216

          I bet that they are now sorry they kicked out

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to The literal definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” are not opposites.

          all those bits of Ben Franklin’s that they were excessive restrictions on the new government.

    • #3148419

      You can be sure that turnabout would NOT be considered fair play.

      by mustangj369 ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      If any IE supporters were to try something like this against Firefox, the cry FOUL would be heard around the world. These same infantile creators of Explorer Destroyer would be hiring lawyers by the carload, doing their best to implicate MS (deeper pockets you know) and suing everyone in sight of Redmond.
      It’s things like this that shake my faith in the 1st Amendment.

      • #3148370

        The real solution.

        by beilstwh ·

        In reply to You can be sure that turnabout would NOT be considered fair play.

        The correct way to handle this problem is to talk to the company that is using IE centric code. My bank’s web site could only be used if you were using IE. I contacted the web site support division and explained that they were blocking 25% of their customers by using microsoft specific web scripting. I explained the dangers of using VBscript. They recently released a new web site that ONLY used web standards and works with everybody. No company wants to lose business and when you explain it to them, most will change.

        • #3148289

          I think that that’s being overly-optimistic.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The real solution.

          That experts in web design, particularly with regard to usability, have been counseling against the use of browser-centric features, along with the overuse of bells & whistles such as Flash for several years now, with little change visible, leads me to suspect that the only ones paying attention are those outside of IT, and frequently outside the company, who are tasked with the job of improving a sites ROI.

          Given the number of new sites that blatently place form [b]before[/b] function witnessed by me, it seems clear that site developers still hav’nt gotten the message.

          A large part of the problem is that a large portion of developers are wet behind the ears, and either lack experienced guidance or choose to ignore it.

        • #3162821

          They use it because they can

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I think that that’s being overly-optimistic.

          They just haven’t learned that just because you can use something doesn’t mean you should.

          Besides, bells & whistles are all the rage. How else do you explain a cell phone/walkie-talkie/camera/web browser/email client/iPod-wannabe almost as thin as a credit card?

          And EVERYBODY has broadband, so there’s no problem, right?

        • #3162813

          Yes!!! Someone gets it!!!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to They use it because they can

          Now that there’s 2 of us, does this mean it’s a movement?

        • #3162810

          I’m afraid to ask

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Yes!!! Someone gets it!!!

          What kind of movement?

          Actually, I have long been in favor of taking people like this up in an airplane, then telling them they can step out the door without a parachute. It’s one way to drive the lesson home.

        • #3162712

          Two?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Yes!!! Someone gets it!!!

          There are a fair number of us that think similarly, just here at TR — let alone elsewhere. Some of us, such as Jaqui, jmgarvin, and me, have even commented to this effect at TR before.

        • #3163729

          Ditto for my credit union

          by ali40961 ·

          In reply to The real solution.

          I sent their webmasters articles that explained the issues and now i can use ANY BROWSER I WANT…. YEA for a choice!

        • #3163639

          Does’t your bank/credit union ask

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Ditto for my credit union

          Why are you closing your account with us? any more.

          I closed my account because of outrageous fees, I didn?t use net banking back then. My credit union just implemented a few new security features including “virtual keyboard” which you have to use with the mouse (moves every time you click on it as well) to defeat key loggers. It does take 6 times as long to put in your password but hey, it?s my money in there and I like the extra security. Works fine in firefox from Winblows, Linux and even a Mac (shudder). Havent tested it in IE, seems I dont use it any more 🙂

      • #3148299

        You are the very 1st here to mention that!

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to You can be sure that turnabout would NOT be considered fair play.

        You are, of course, quite right. It seems that it is one thing for the challenger to play fast and loose with the accepted rules of engagement, but quite another should the champion respond in kind.

        There is a word for this – “hypocrisy.”

        My congratulations for pointing out the obvious to the others; I had begun to wonder if anyone was going to mention it.

      • #3148285

        I hate draconian tactics

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to You can be sure that turnabout would NOT be considered fair play.

        No matter who does them, I hate them. It is not only immature, but pointless and a good way to drive away those that actually WANT to support your product.

        • #3163411

          Exactly

          by eastexpert ·

          In reply to I hate draconian tactics

          The more people go on 100% stupid “Kill IE” campaign, trying to TELL ME what to do, the more I’m firm in my determination to not touch FF with a bargepole and making everything I can to make it die instead. BY other means.

        • #3163177

          Well, that’s silly.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Exactly

          I don’t let people who are obsessed and unreasonable convince me to follow their path, but I don’t let them drive me away from it, either. Try taking a reasonable, rather than reactionary, approach: try Firefox out for yourself, determine its benefits and detriments, do some reasearch, and make an informed decision.

        • #3162816

          Silly, perhaps. But, still understandable.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Well, that’s silly.

          All of us are, to some extent, judged by those with whom we are associated. While such may be neither reasonable nor equitable does not prevent it from occuring; it seems to be a nature trait.

        • #3162819

          I concur wholeheartedly.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I hate draconian tactics

          Oh, well, every family has its black sheep.

      • #3148255

        Waht do you mean IF – MS are already doing

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to You can be sure that turnabout would NOT be considered fair play.

        things much worse than this as part of their routine predatory marketting practices. At least this bunch of twits are giving you an option – more than MS often does.

    • #3163339

      IT’S A JOKE SITE!!!

      by smorty71 ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      The whole Explorer Destroyer site is a joke (and by “joke,” I mean a real joke).

      If you didn’t pick up the subtle clues at the top of their home page, the last paragraph in the right column is a dead giveaway:

      “Set script to Dead Serious mode if you a) feel particularly responsible for your readers’ well being b) demand vengeance for all those times a site said “you need Netscape 4.7 to view this page” or c) don’t give a fuck.”

      And then there is this line right before the hilarious “wealth” graph on the home page:

      “This graph illustrates the dramatic transfer of wealth from Google to you as you participate in their affiliate program (yes, this is a joke).”

      • #3163338

        These fools don’t deserve my pity!

        by Shawn Morton ·

        In reply to IT’S A JOKE SITE!!!

        Glad to see someone here has a sense of humor.

      • #3163265

        The graph was a joke.

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to IT’S A JOKE SITE!!!

        The actual banner/splashpage code is real.

      • #3162759

        The Campaign is real….

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to IT’S A JOKE SITE!!!

        A few news site links where Google’s payment is discussed.

        http://www.betadot.com/news/2006/211/google-firefox.html

        http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=122000034FQU

        and:
        Global:
        Google Offering $1 For Firefox Referral
        Search giant Google is offering a standard $1 per user referral fee to Web sites that generate new downloads of Firefox with the Google Toolbar. Taking advantage of Google’s new AdSense program, a group of self-titled “political activists” in Massachusetts has started an aggressive campaign called “Explorer Destroyer,” to get browser users to switch from Microsoft’s Internet Explorer to Mozilla’s Firefox.

        from:
        http://www.interbiznet.com/bugler/bugler_06.05.02.html

        so while the graph is a joke, a poor one since it’s also the truth of the situation, the get paid a buck for every person to download firefox from your website is not a joke.

        • #3162661

          Then it’s really dumb

          by smorty71 ·

          In reply to The Campaign is real….

          Wow, as a joke, I thought it was sort of funny. As a real “campaign,” it is just plain dumb.

          When are activists/extremists like this going to learn that their actions usually do more to push their “cause” further to the fringe rather than get it into the mainstream.

        • #3162655

          I still think it’s funny

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Then it’s really dumb

          I personally just code my sites to the current standards. if a browser doesn’t handle it, that is the browser supplier’s problem.
          Generally, it’s IE that fails, but there are others that fail as badly as ie with current W3C site standards.

          the other browsers make one change that ie < 7 should do, when they can't use the code, they get rid of parsing it. lynx can't use the css, same as Dillo, yet both give a usable site, whereas ie the code needs to be tweaked for it to work, because ie refuses to just ignore code it can't render correctly. editing to add: There is a single line tweak that does get ie to work very well with css: [pre]
          [/pre]

          that one line does the trick. by adding it to my own site it fixed all the rendering bugs that ie was hit with.

        • #3162614

          These extremists are a subset of computer users

          by mustangj369 ·

          In reply to Then it’s really dumb

          that have chosen, for whatever reason, to hate Microsoft specifically, and big business in general. They are Linux users usually, but Apple people are represented too and that’s really funny because Apple is one of the most closed and proprietary companies on Earth, more monopolistic by true definition than even MS. They are few in number but they are loud and persistent, pervading forums all over the ‘net that have little or nothing to do with Linux or Macs, spewing their obvious hatred of everything MS in order to turn more people away from the “evil empire”. It doesn’t work, of course, as market share for alternate OS’s doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, but zealots have a deaf ear for anything that doesn’t support their cause.
          Google will find themselves in this company soon if they continue as they are, buying everything in sight and looking to challenge MS. It may take longer as they are hardly necessary and easily avoidable, but their PR people are working overtime to plant stories about Google everywhere except restrooms these days, and it’ll get to the point where many will gag at yet another mention of the word. I think I may already be there.
          BTW, saw a story somewhere that said those looking to cash in on these referrals of FF with the Google toolbar will have to get to at least 100 downloads before Google will cut a check. They do aim high. Most who fall for this will never see a dime.

        • #3163724

          Extremists?

          by ali40961 ·

          In reply to These extremists are a subset of computer users

          Then I must be too because I took IE COMPLETELY off every user’s pc i support and gave them a choice!

          The funny thing is I am a relatively conservative person, and still use MS prods.

          On what authority did u get ur info? Do you know them all personally?

        • #3163692

          “Do No Evil”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Campaign is real….

          How does this act comport with Google’s mantra?

          It seems, to me, not well at all.

        • #3163658

          Say what?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “Do No Evil”

          Google isn’t doing this. Google has a referral program. Someone unconnected decided to leverage it for what amounts to net politics.

          I’m still not seeing it as “evil”, anyway. Some of the more extreme applications of this are a bit inadvisable, generally, but that doesn’t make any of it “evil”.

        • #3155903

          It’s called advertising

          by ken coe ·

          In reply to The Campaign is real….

          Google is not in some big browser conspiracy, and neither is Mozilla. Google pays for someone downloading the google search bar for ANY browser. It just so happens that Firefox took it one step further and included it in their browser by defualt. Google makes money off searchers. The searchbar makes it easier to make that money. Google pays for the toolbar, and the toolbar is in that version of the browser. It is THAT simple. You can also get paid if they download the toolbar for IE (it IS available for IE).

          I have made money off adsense on a couple of sites (although not much) by linking to things my reader might like, such as a link to amazon for the book I discuss. This is used all over the place, including on the right side of the page you are LOOKING AT NOW. See where it says from our sponsors? Read the url for the link. Viola! A new conspiracy to discuss!

          Yes, adsense DOES pay people for advertising. Do you think all those neat commercials on TV are free? Adsense takes the step in a slightly different direction by basing it’s advertising dollars on productivity. Kind of like paying truck drivers by the mile.

          The problem with this is that some people get greedy and try to trick, or force, you into clicking with their website. It’s called SPAM. It’s been around a while. They just have a new angle. If you report them to Google, they will sever the account with that site, as it is in violation of the ad-sense contract.

          Go to ad-sense and check it out yourself.

      • #3155904

        Doesn’t matter if it is a joke

        by ken coe ·

        In reply to IT’S A JOKE SITE!!!

        I am sorry to say it, but this site has a habit of firing off at Linux and open source whether it is the truth or not. That is why they have so many “Tuxmaniacs.” Linux admins getting tired of a smear the open source attitude from many of the Windows guys. Don’t know why, but it is very common here. Good coverage of many topics, but go to slashdot and the like for any opensource news. You won’t get the story here.

        • #3155802

          Off topic; and, evidence of tunnel vision.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Doesn’t matter if it is a joke

          1) This thread is [b]not[/b] about bashing any particular product, OS, etc.. It [b]is[/b] about the particular tactics employed by a specific group.

          2) As for open source & Linux bashing, I submit that there’s plenty to be had by all; in fact, if you look around here, you’ll finding the [b]overwhelming majority of “bashing”[/b] to be directed at [b]MS and Windows.[/b]

          3) With regards to proselytizing, the FF fans are here exceedingly well represented, as witnessed by the numerous posts seeking aid receiving replies that simply say “You’re a fool for using IE; switch to FF.”

          In summation, I submit that you are either ill informed re. the totality of posts here, or you are selectively choosing those to be acknowledged.

        • #3156081

          I agree thread off topic, and no tunnel vision

          by ken coe ·

          In reply to Off topic; and, evidence of tunnel vision.

          I would agree that the article talks about a single group of people who are going the wrong way, but the bulk of the threads switched to “the Google/FF conspiracy” (OK, not THAT extreme) pretty quickly. I was responding to one of those threads.

          As far as the bias of the site, I was refering to the news distributed by the site, not the discussion threads. I said that specifically in the message. I do see a lot of people standing up in support of free/open-source software in the discussion threads. I also see reference to them as fanatics for doing it. My reference was to what is distributed by the site.

          A good refernce point for that is what is selected to be sent in the newsletters. If you receive them, go back a few weeks, and count how many articles are pro and con. It is not exactly pro-gpl.

          Two examples- The issue that covers Novell announcing its new OSS Offerings, and the issue which announces Sun will ship some servers with Ubuntu. Both of these (and many more), where followed by a link to at least two blatantly anti-OSS blogs. Show me where they did that with a MS announcement. How about the article about MS declaring that Linux is not mature enough to be stable or reliable. No answer to THAT? That’s an outright lie, but no counter to it.

          I would hardly say that I am trying to tune out the MS crowd. I am here for the MS news, as I stated in the original post. Techrepublic covers what most IT people see in the field, and that is MS. I don’t see that as a problem. Every site leans one way or another. I certainly would not go to Slashdot for MS news or info.

        • #3158014

          Are you referring to …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I agree thread off topic, and no tunnel vision

          articles in general, or specific columnists.

          If the latter, which one’s

        • #3157807

          General outlook

          by ken coe ·

          In reply to Are you referring to …

          I appreciate the chance to clarify that.

          Overall, I think the columnists do a pretty good job. It is the selection of the stories that I see. Call it the editors.

          I don’t think that they are deliberately trying to slam OSS. I think they tend to lean toward commercial software. A good part of that is the number of whitepapers and publicized announcements being financed by commercial suppliers. Tech Republic is doing nothing like the fools that this post was about.

          As I said, any communication outlet will lean one way or another. This one tends to fall toward Microsoft. Not surprising considering its installed base, and not a bad thing at all. I was just pointing out that we need to consider our sources for news.

        • #3157221

          Follow the money?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to General outlook

          Bear in mind that TR’s revenue stream comes, not from its members, but from ad sponsors. Given that there’s a lot more to be made by selling goods and services that are applicable to the larger existing installed user bases than to smaller ones, it follows that an inherent bias is to be expected.

    • #3163680

      Which raise the question of $$$.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      If Google is giving affiliates who carry this AdSense ad a buck for each download, how much is Google receiving from the sponsor of the ad?

      Or, is Google in fact underwiting the campaign by giving the sponsor a free ride?

      • #3163660

        some more detail

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Which raise the question of $$$.

        The referral payments are only for Firefox downloads that include a Google toolbar. It’s all basically just advertising for Google. Firefox is getting a “free ride” in that the Google toolbar that is being advertised is advertised by way of the Firefox browser.

        Google didn’t create this campaign. The Firefox (with Google toolbar) referral program existed before this Explorer Destroyer thing, and from what I can see, Google hasn’t reacted to it in any way at all.

    • #3163509

      FF sucks

      by itjunkie ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      see title

      • #3163079

        troll

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to FF sucks

        see title

        • #3163078

          explanation

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to troll

          Now, for an explanation of my previous post:

          A post that involves nothing but an inflammatory comment without any supporting discussion or explanation is, by definition, trolling. I recommend not feeding this troll. Thanks for your time and forebearance, folks.

        • #3163069

          I agree

          by kniht ·

          In reply to explanation

          Inflammatory comments without supporting discussion to me, at least, makes no sense.
          At the top end, FF is a decent browser. I have used FF on occasion, but have quit using it. If this group wants everybody to use FF then FF developers need to find a way for it to use less system resources.
          I have 768MB RAM and when I see FF using over 500MB, it’s time to put it away

        • #3163015

          Firefox Memory Usage.

          by rgeiken9 ·

          In reply to I agree

          I just turned Firefox Off. When It was on, I was using 670 Meg, and when it was off, the memory usage was 600 meg. Also I don’t use any page files since I have 2 gig or ram. Right now with Firefox turned on, I am using 641 meg of ram. That is only about 40 to 50 meg of ram, and not 500 meg. How were you determining that 500 meg. figure?

        • #3163010

          Not the only one noticing this

          by kniht ·

          In reply to Firefox Memory Usage.

          When I leave ff on for extended periods of time, say overnight, go to my PC the next morning and my memory monitor tells me I am down to 32MB free memory (my PC normally uses around 260MB for all processes, etc. out of 768), I turn off ff and my free memory jumps to 524MB, I figure ff was using around 500MB memory.
          Discussions on this topic can be found here:
          http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html

        • #3163007

          You must have had some hellishish

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I agree

          pages open to use that much. I currently have 4 TR pages open as tabs and FF is using 36.9 MB. When I was looking at switching to it I open 5 pages in FF and the same 5 pages in IE.

          IE used 20 MB for each instance and opened a new instance of IE for each page; FF opened I instance with 5 tabs for 28 MB. Total for IE was 100 MB – so I switched.

          I have notices that FF uses more RAM and VM as required by each page – but that would happen with any browser as you open pages.

        • #3162977

          Possibly

          by kniht ·

          In reply to You must have had some hellishish

          Could be I did have a lot of Hellashish pages open. Possibly with a lot of flash, who knows, too late now to look back.

          I’m no IT Pro nor do I consider myself an “expert” in the workings of a computer. I am a commoner and all I know is I’ve never had as high a memory usage with Maxthon, Opera, K-Meleon, Avant, or even IE as I have with FF.

          Maybe my PC is allergic to FF (I use very few extensions). Like I stated previously, FF all in all is a good browser, but in it’s present state it doesn’t seem to agree with my lowly HP equipment.
          Again I reiterate:
          http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html

        • #3162947

          Interesting link, I read it, but all browsers

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Possibly

          cache pages the only difference being the number they cache and that is adjustable in FF the only adjustment I ever found in IE for that was to turn it on or off. I have noticed that whilst I am on the Internet with Windows open there are a couple of system services that keep growing and only shrink when I reboot. They grow whilst on-line but do not shrink when the connection is broken. They are listed in Windows Task Manager as simpy svhost.exe. They clear on a reboot.

          A side point of this discussion you might find interesting is that I have a few machines on a LAN. My main machine is a 64 bit system and currently running Win XP 64 bit – I opened FF, IE and Avant and had each load the same set of pages. Then I went to another machine with Fedora Core 4 and opened the same pages again in FF. RAM usage was

          FD4 + FF 25MB
          XP + FF 34MB
          XP + Avant 42MB
          XP + IE 105MB

          And the svhost file blew out as each extra browser was opened and really jumped as each extra IE instance was opened. I have no clue as to why it happens as I don’t know enough about this end of things – but interesting results. I wonder if they ware the same order of results for others.

        • #3161946

          Curious, Ernest! two questions:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Possibly

          1. Have you compared IE with tabbed browsing capability added to opening the same number of different pages in separate browser windows?

          2. Have you tried Ctrl+Alt+Del to shut down the service, then re-Start it?

          PS I don’t care enough to try these tests myself, and won’t think less of you if you don’t, either.

        • #3161922

          Absolutely – Answers to your last two posts

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Possibly

          1. The last version if MSIE that I used is IE 6.0.3 something and it does not have tabs. IE 7 may have tabs I don’t know and don’t care I have given up on IE. Anyway IE 7 is Beta only and will probably end up different in the final version. Also I am testing various Linux flavours for what suits me best and will shortly be leaving Windows completely as I am fed up with security upgrades that crash applications.

          2. Oh yes I have tried closing the service concerned and when I do it closes off my network access and a reboot is needed to restart it and get access again. One of the reasons why I know it is related to the network and Internet access.

          3. I am happy for you that you are happy with IE, however I am not. Reasons for not hiring the FF designers could be that MS think anyone who works for Mozilla may not be compatible with the MS ethos, or the designers may have refused to work for MS when asked. Maybe MS just wanted to leave it with their in house people – who knows, who cares. It is interesting to not that several IE overlays, like Avant, got a lot of mileage out of selling the ‘We have tabbed functions’ bit for many years before MS even took notice of it as a function that people liked. This points to major problems in the MS hierachy as far as client usage and concern is.

        • #3161847

          slow feature uptake

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Possibly

          The reason IE never incorporated those extra features is pretty simple:

          MS is a huge corporation. The dynamics of corporate economics encourage thinking in terms of market dominance rather than product quality or even actual dollars and sense pofitability. Once IE had killed Netscape and captured more than 97% of the browser market, Microsoft figured its job was done. Thus, it stopped. It rested on its laurels. It ignored the “bit players”.

          Then . . . Firefox came out of nowhere, captured more than ten percent of the market, and made MS executives take notice of the browser market again. Suddenly, Microsoft said “What’s up with all this tabbed browsing stuff?” and so on. Now we’ve got IE7 on the way.

          Ain’t competition from the noncorporate little guy grand?

        • #3162949

          head-to-head, as similar in features as possible

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You must have had some hellishish

          http://addins.msn.com/

          The MSN Search Toolbar allows tabbed browsing in IE. I use it at work, and Firefox at home in Linux. My own desktop is — DUH — faster than my company laptop. I haven’t noticed practical performance differences that manifested in page load times or times to load other applications with either, so the free OS and more secure, utilitarian browser wins.

        • #3162945

          so you use a 3rd party addition to give it the

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to head-to-head, as similar in features as possible

          same functionality – I did that to IE with Avant and found it much better than plain IE. But FF does it as part of the basic set up. All that is really important is that you are happy with what you are using and they way you use it.

          I do not use anyone’s add in toolbars as I find most of them add a lot of extra ‘features’ that I do not want. I have a client who constantly adds in the Yahoo toolbar and her husband adds in the MSN toolbar – the browser looks crowded and every so often something happens between the two to crash the system. Remove the browser and reload without the toolbars and the problem goes away – until about 6 weeks after they have reloaded the suckers.

        • #3161941

          Exactly right, Deadly.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to head-to-head, as similar in features as possible

          I add to IE the functions of Firefox that make Firefox [b]better[/b] than vanilla IE, for my use as an end-luser. I find no difference in overall utility, but I note that Firefox had tabs first, and I wonder why the most wealthy software company hasn’t hired the talent that provided this innovation to the market first.

        • #3161815

          The usage adds up very quickly.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You must have had some hellishish

          I presently have 4 FF windows open, totaling 10 tabs, and FF’s total memory consumption is 184 Meg.

          Opening another tab for this discussion alone uses 28 Meg.

        • #3161808

          But, the EL discussion only uses 6 Meg!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The usage adds up very quickly.

          Most curious.

      • #3162978

        Well, that was certainly informative. NOT.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to FF sucks

        Care to elaborate?

    • #3163016

      Firefox Supporters

      by rgeiken9 ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      I have been using Firefox for over a year now, and wouldn’t consider going back to Internet Explorer except for when it is actually necessary to view a particular site. I would imagine all of the power users of browsers are using Firefox since it is so far superior to IE. The main users of IE are people who can barely use their computer. I have an older neighbor woman who is using the copy of Firefox that I installed on her computer, and she likes it just fine.

      For an awful lot of people it is too much trouble to install a new Browser, and the are content to use IE even though a lot of us consider that to be an inferior product.

    • #3162958

      uh-huh

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      I’m an Adsense user. Trust me, there wasn’t time to check my advertising between when I signed up and when it appeared on my various websites. It’s all pretty much automated.

      • #3162922

        Yes and no.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to uh-huh

        Both Google and Yahoo/Overture show signs of inconsistency with regards to approving/rejecting PPC listings and ads.

        Much obviously depends on the particular “editor” responsible for a given submission.

        When rejected, just keep re-submitting until you get the result desired.

      • #3162892

        What exactly are you talking about?

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to uh-huh

        Do you mean when someone first signs up, or when someone puts ads on a page? When someone first signs up, Google treats it as an application for membership or something to that effect. This is before there’s any advertising added to the site. As a result, there’s no way for anyone at Google, at that time, to deny an Adsense account based on use of the Explorer Destroyer banner or splash screen, since it doesn’t exist on the site yet. Once you have your account, you add the code to the site for whatever ads you want to use, and if someone at Google happens to notice something that violates Google’s terms, it’s gone.

        None of that indicates any reasonable likelihood of an Explorer Destroyer ad getting disapproved by Google personnel, and in no way makes Google complicit in what you characterize as “evil”, as far as I can tell.

      • #3161972

        You’re omniscient; figure it our for yourself.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to uh-huh

    • #3161862

      Firefox Supporters Gone too Far?

      by rgeiken9 ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      After my third attempt to install IE7, and you guessed it another failure, it doesn’t seem so. I don’t hate Microsoft, but IE7 beta seems to be a real piece of work. They have several other software programs that you have to install to help with the IE7 beta, but so far no soap. They want users to make adjustments to the registry!!!! With Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, I have never had to do anything like that. Also Firefox 1.5.0.3 automatically installed itself when it was released.

      I’m not sure what Microsoft is trying to do, but they are sure making it hard to use IE7. I have never had any other piece of software that was so impossible to install. Right now since I have installed several other Microsoft programs that are supposed to help with IE7 beta installation, the install should be possible, but with all the aggravation that I have had trying to install it, I’m not sure that it is worth the problems since I enjoy using Firefox so much.

      • #3161846

        the hubris of Microsoft, and IE7 beta

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Firefox Supporters Gone too Far?

        IE7 is a beta, of course. That means that one is supposed to expect some issues with it. Betas are for early adopters, not people who want ease of use and installation, with no problems. That, of course, is the reasonable answer to your problems with it. I’m sure that stuff will be pretty much cleared up for the actual release version.

        Of course, that’s a problem in itself. The general public has already waited such a long time for IE to incorporate advanced browser features that they’ve finally given up and started migrating to other browsers such as Firefox. These other browsers have integrated advanced browser features for years now. Consumers have finally started noticing. What’s Microsoft’s response?

        Wait. Wait for IE7. Wait for it to become production-ready. Wait wait wait. You’ve already waited: you’ll wait some more, just because they’re Microsoft.

        Of course, if you wait for IE7, you’ll eventually get your advanced features, and it will probably be on par, technology-wise, with its main competitor. Then, it will start to fall behind again.

        There are some definite benefits to the open source development credo of “release early, release often”. You get a faster effective development cycle, where things get done more quickly and with greater attention to detail. One such benefit is, of course, that it doesn’t shoot itself in the foot the way corporate closed source development has with IE.

        • #3161826

          Microsoft, and IE7 beta

          by rgeiken9 ·

          In reply to the hubris of Microsoft, and IE7 beta

          I was a beta tester on Windows 95, and there were a ton of problems, but eventually it did work OK, and I was able to take a trip to Seattle for the roll out in 1995. At that time the jump was from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 which turned out to be a quantum jump. I have also beta tested other products, but nothing has ever presented the problems of IE7. When the program refuses to install, they mention that some registry settings were unable to be changed that were required to install IE7. I have been using the Administrator Account, so the software should have been able to be installed. My computer is upgraded to the latest Windows XP upgrades, and has had any spyware removed, and also checks clean for viruses. I am using Zone Alarm Free and also AVG free edition. I have never found any problems in any computer that I have ever had, and have had one since 1985.

          The information presented by Microsoft that says why the software won’t install is very cryptic. Most Betas might present problems in operation, but hopefully they will install properly. I have IE6 installed now, and it works fine, and have also used Netscape and Maxthon successfully. I have had problems installing Netscape 8.0, so just gave up on that. With the Firefox operation so clean, it doesn’t make sense to screw around with IE7.

          I wasn’t actually planning on using IE7 as my default browser anyhow, I just wanted to see what Microsoft had come up with. I guess I will just wait until I buy a new computer with Vista which will likely have IE7 preinstalled.

      • #3161814

        MS’s Betas are more like Alphas.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Firefox Supporters Gone too Far?

        When I was working on big iron, at an IBM beta user site, it was my experience that their betas were damned close to being ready for prime time.

        Today’s “betas,” not those from MS alone, really don’t qualify as such. That some people actually pay for the “privilege” of debugging an alpha release never cease to amaze me.

        By the way, on what OS & SP are you try to install IE7?

        • #3161789

          MS’s Betas are more like Alphas.

          by rgeiken9 ·

          In reply to MS’s Betas are more like Alphas.

          I have Windows XP Professional with SP2 and all the latest updates. I didn’t really want to use IE& full time, I just wanted to see what they had put into it. Firefox is so easy to install and use, not sure why anyone would want to use IE7. Even with all the IE6 updates, the program is difficult to use. I like the tabs on Firefox, plus I have Noia 2.0 skin installed, and it is a modern looking interface. People who are not very computer literate will stick with IE, since it is probably already installed and they don’t want to be bothered. If you “Surf” a lot, Firefox is definitely superior!!!! IMHO

        • #3161777

          I use both.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to MS’s Betas are more like Alphas.

          While I do like FF’s tabs, because such uses up less real estate on the Task Bar, I do find it a bit “primitive” compared to IE, particularly with respect to it’s handling of cookies & pop-ups/unders. Overall, FF lacks a sufficiently fine level of granularity with respect to user control of the granting of permissions relative to that offered by IE.

          I would advise against judging IE 7 by the experience that you’ve had re. installation porblems with the beta version; but, that you reserve judgement until it’s past the .0.0 version.

          I also find it to be quite a memory hog, though not in manner that is wholly predictable.

          As a result, I find myself switching between IE & FF, depending on the site(s) involved.

          With regards to computer “literacy,” it is my experienced observation that IE in fact requires [b]more[/b] of such than does FF, per the subject of control addressed in my 1st paragraph.

        • #3161732

          Basic users don’t care

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I use both.

          Yes, IE does require greater ability to set up properly. The problem is Microsoft has emphasized the “ready-to-go-out-of-the-box” capability of their software for years. The average user sees this and thinks “Good! I don’t have to do anything to use this except start it up.”

          Thus, the less computer literate use IE.

        • #3161647

          “the less computer literate use IE” ?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I use both.

          In view of the fact that we have already established that most use what they have at hand, as opposed to that which they have deliberately selected for use, this statement seems unfounded.

          Those who use AOL as their portal tend to use Navigator as their browser, rather than IE; those using MSN as their portal, MSN Explorer, which is [b]not[/b] IE.

          Furthermore, it appears to be tautological, in that it infers a quality of the users from a quality of the tool used, which itself was inferred from a quality of the users. And, it seems to be based on the assumption that “ease of use” and “computer literacy” have a positive correlation factor.

          In fact, “ease of use” and “computer literacy” are in [b]no[/b] way correlated. “Ease of use” is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. subjective, whereas “computer literacy” can be objectively defined and measured.

          I, for example, am highly computer literate, but find IE to be more easily used for control of cookies than is FF.

        • #3162440

          OK, OK

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to “the less computer literate use IE” ?

          I see your point.

          Reiterate reasoning, strike conclusion.

    • #3161592

      I’d pay them PERSONALLY

      by dogx ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      And I’m a one woman show, disabled and only able to work (security and Net) VERY part time… I’d give a client a $5 spot per workstation for every one they converted to using Mozilla Suite or FF/T-bird… my job would be that much easier. It would bring me a better reputation, and a few more referrals would be a nice thing

      I could be that much more certain my Client’s were SECURE and that I’d provided them with the best available apps for their needs. I would adamantly DITTO and toss in another Finn if I could get them using Open Office. For the same reasons. Using an Open OS is out of the question. I’d have a stroke out of disbelief.

      My small and select clientele is in Criminal Defense and Civil rights law offices — and the legal imbroglio’s surrounding “Meta-data” and the non-securable BLOAT of most Micro-Sausage OS and applications are a nightmare, like Abott and Costello doing Catch 22…

      If my clients used Open source, secure applications, they could avoid 90% of these issues… If they used LINUX and a rigorous “Security Hygene” routine, they could avoid ALL of them.

      I have nothing against Micro-Sausage. There are brilliant people working there, and surely some decent, kind and ethical folk — why have ill thoughts toward people I don’t even know?

      If MicroSoft truly did provide the Overall Best applications for my client’s needs, I would be saying drop the Mozilla before you get burned!

      For my clients, the MS “suite” is THE PROBLEM. I had to get over some Ethical Hiccups of my own, charging them to patch and band-aid something that was “broken” from jump street.

      In economic sectors where ethics and privacy are not a “Gold Standard” (such as Government Offices, Pawn Shops, “As Seen on TV” Outlets, and Used Auto Parts) MS apps are ideal. They BELONG there 😉

      Meanwhile, I’ll turn the screws, change the parts and feel like a little dutch boy stopping up holes in a firewall that was built backwards to begin with….

      God Bless

      Dogx

    • #3162303

      PC World Editor in Chief’s take on “Explorer Destroyers”

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

    • #3162299

      Ed Bott’s take

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Has this group of FireFox supporters gone too far?

      • #3155034

        choice, extremists, and… i wish i’d thought of it.

        by crabbyabby86 ·

        In reply to Ed Bott’s take

        so… that pcworld link, this one, and this whole conversation… are probably the only debates between IE and FF that I have had the patience to sit through and read… most of. sort of.

        i find it amusing that some people want to both defend the ‘destroyers’ and dissociate themselves from them at the same time.

        i also find it amusing that people whine about choice, when they do have a choice: get ff or don’t patronize those douchers’ sites. it works the other way too: get IE or don’t visit the other extremist (or lazy) douchers’ sites.

        personally, i wish i had thought of it. with my more popular website being visited mostly by people who would be willing to throw the chains of microsoft, i might yet. however, i would probably not take any money and just toss up a page that asks them to try it, and then let them in anyway. i dont TRY to be a doucher. while im at it, maybe ill throw up a form for the FF users asking them why they switched. could be interesting.

        now my question is, would you all have a long, boring debate about my idea? would you give me too much credit, like you’ve done for these guys? it’s like you think they might start a revolution. i have news: the revolution has already begun, and you just have to accept that every revolution has its extremists.

        i will admit though, that you guys in this discussion are having a far more sensible time of it than these linked ones. bravo.

        • #3158133

          There’s nothing wrong with [i]free[/i] choice.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to choice, extremists, and… i wish i’d thought of it.

          What I take strong issue with is the notion that it’s okay to [i]restrict[/i] choice by intentionally blocking one’s site to those who are, at the moment, using a browser other than that esposed by the site’s owner or operator.

          Legal? In my opinion, yes. Ethical? Hardly; particularly in light of the fact that not everyone has a choice in all things and at all times.

          I’ve yet to find any tool that is truly best for all occasions. That’s why, for example, my mechanic’s tool box includes, for working with nuts & bolts, box wrenches, open-end wrenches, sockets and adjustable wrenches. Browsers are no different in this regard; I use several, as best suits the needs of the moment.

        • #3158080

          Ethical?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to There’s nothing wrong with [i]free[/i] choice.

          How is it unethical to choose to exercise one’s right to free association? They don’t have to do business with you if they don’t want to. It’s a form of boycott. If you don’t like it, tough — they don’t have to waste server resources on people whose business they don’t want.

        • #3158073

          I stand by my position.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ethical?

          In so doing, they are wasting the resources of [b]others[/b].

          If you’re going solicit my visiting your site, but going to knowingly and with intent block my access under certain conditions, then you damn well better tell me that up front; to do otherwise is fraudulent.

        • #3156195

          I thought you were joking.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I stand by my position.

          I only ignored this comment of yours because I figured you weren’t serious. Fraud has nothing to do with your assumptions failing to match reality. Fraud is about knowingly and with intent deceiving you. There’s absolutely nothing fraudulent about simply failing to inform everyone that reads an ad that some people are not in the target demographic for the advertisement.

        • #3158013

          Definitions of “fraud.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          See

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

          I contend that the actions in question do constitute fraud, at least in the broad sense, in that those involved are engaged in “deception made for personal gain.”

        • #3157964

          That’s a heckuva stretch.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          Are you telling me now that from someone having a website that has a splash page or advertisement for a given demographic they’re automatically trying to trick people into downloading and installing software? Is that really what you’re saying? Yeah, that’s one hell of a reach. Don’t strain yourself, buddy.

        • #3157218

          Is that what I said? I think not.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          What I did say is that for one to invite another to his site, for the supposed purpose of providing a service, but with the intent of requiring the visitor to down a specific browser if not already present, is deceptive.

          And, said deception is accomplished through [b]material misrepresentation[b]; that it is one of omission is irrelevant. A material misrepresentation is one which, had it not occurred, may have resulted in the respondent choosing a different course of action.

          And, as the result of such deception is gainful to the operator of such site, such constitutes fraud.

          The only thing that keeps it from being [i]criminal[/i] fraud is that the material misrepresentation was not made with the intent to cause loss to the visitor.

        • #3157149

          Yeah, sure.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          You’d have a fun time trying to convince a lawyer of that.

        • #3166229

          As I’ve allowed that it is NOT CRIMINAL fraud, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          why would I wish to convince a lawyer otherwise?

        • #3166502

          The point is OVER THERE. You’re aiming in the wrong direction.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          I mentioned the idea of convincing a lawyer to point out that you’d have a tough time convincing someone that actually knows what “fraud” means, criminal or otherwise.

          It’s not fraud if it’s not deceptive. Get that? Clear yet?

          The problem, though, seems to be that you think YOUR LACK OF ACCURATE EXPECTATION constitutes SOMEONE ELSE’S FRAUDULENT INTENT.

          Besides, if it was fraud, it WOULD be criminal in nature, since it’s worth a dollar per click. Supposedly.

        • #3166123

          Definitions of general & criminal fraud that I presented are correct.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          FYI, I have formally studied contract law, which includes the subject of fraud.

          The definitions & explanations provided are not my personal views, but those generally accepted.

          It is important to make the distinction between general & criminal frauds. While the [b]latter[/b] requires intent to cause [b]loss to another[/b], the [b]former[/b] involves the lesser motive of [b]personal gain[/b].

          Furthermore, “deception,” as used by you, is not an accurate way of describing a key element of fraud; the proper term is “material misrespresentation,” as I’ve previously noted and described.

        • #3166111

          I’ve got some bad news for you.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          1. “Material misrepresentation” is even narrower than “deception”.

          2. Intent is still necessary to the definition.

          3. I thought the whole problem for you was that you’re being “coerced” in some way. That’s a loss. Get with the program.

          4. Whether you’ve taken classes in contract law or not, you’re still full of it.

        • #3166098

          As I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to repeat myself, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I thought you were joking.

          and given that I’ve previously adequately addressed all of the points that you here again raise, I’ll not revisit them without substantive rebuttal.

        • #3158068

          Re. “freedom of association.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ethical?

          This argument has been used to justify a great number of evils, not he least of which was racial segregation.

          That a particular form of discrimination has not been declared unlawful does [b]not[/b] mean that it is ethical.

          The action here in question is not a boycott; it is an unethical denial of service.

        • #3155948

          Race baiting . . . ?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Re. “freedom of association.”

          That’s a new low.

          Unlike race, you can choose your browser.

        • #3155791

          [i]Non sequitur[/i] and evasive.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

        • #3155711

          That’s not a very good explanation of your actions.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          The fact that your race-baiting was basically a non-sequitur and evaded the actual point I brought up doesn’t in any way change or refute what I said.

        • #3156323

          Huh?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          The unfounded charge of “race Baiting” is the [i]non sequitur[/i].

          And, it was evasive in that it fails to address my point that “freedom of association” does not justify any and all actions.

          Furthermore, you’ve yet to address my immediately prior post re. fraud.

        • #3156318

          Huh?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          The unfounded charge of “race Baiting” is the [i]non sequitur[/i].

          And, it was evasive in that it fails to address my point that “freedom of association” does not justify any and all actions.

          Furthermore, you’ve yet to address my immediately prior post re. fraud.

        • #3156192

          Okay, a more serious response.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          “[i]This argument has been used to justify a great number of evils, not he least of which was racial segregation.[/i]”
          Race-baiting. Don’t bother trying to deny it. You’re intentionally and blatantly associating racism with the issue at hand, which has zero to do with racism. Ooh, since someone used “freedom of association” to justify racism, I must be an eeeeeevil racist for uttering the phrase. No, it’s not what you said, but without being much stupider than I know you to be you couldn’t possibly have been unaware that impression might be made by your statements.

          “[i]That a particular form of discrimination has not been declared unlawful does not mean that it is ethical.[/i]”
          That something is not ruled out doesn’t prove it. Please try to avoid absurd logical fallacies. They make us both look stupid without providing a solid argument for anything: you look stupid to people who recognize logical fallacies, and I look stupid to people who don’t. Nobody wins.

          “[i]The action here in question is not a boycott; it is an unethical denial of service.[/i]”
          How is it not a boycott? People who take part in this anti-IE campaign are attempting to remove themselves from economic circles that support the software of a given vendor. That sure sounds like a boycott to me. It’s like refusing to watch a TV show when advertisements for an offensive (to the boycotter) product are aired during the commercial breaks for that show, thus reducing the show’s ratings, until such time as the network drops that advertiser. Perhaps you’re not aware that’s how boycotts often work.

          “[i]The unfounded charge of “race Baiting” is the non sequitur.[/i]”
          No, a non sequitur is something that doesn’t have a point of relevance, like your absurdly inappropriate reference to racist segregation politics, implying some kind of ethical similarity between A) not wanting your business because of skin color and B) not wanting your business because your other business dealings support a particular monopolist (by intent, if not in practice).

          “[i]And, it was evasive in that it fails to address my point that “freedom of association” does not justify any and all actions.[/i]”
          That wasn’t evasion of a relevant point: it was ignoring a non sequitur. I didn’t try to justify “any and all actions” and you damned well know it.

          I’ve addressed your silly “point” about fraud. Get a dictionary.

        • #3158011

          Definition of “non sequitur.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

          Your accusation of “race baiting” is a [i]logical fallacy[/i], unsupported by other than your own opinion.

          Hence, your reply is nonsubstantive, and serves only to evade the issue re. “freedom of association.”

        • #3158009

          Definition of “boycott.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          boy?cott

          To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See synonyms at blackball.
          n.

          The act or an instance of boycotting.

          ————————————————–

          As the actions of those here in question [b]deliberately seek to deal with[/b] IE users, thay cannot be said to be boycotting them.

          Only [b]their own abstainance[/b] from using IE constitutes a boycoot.

        • #3157963

          definition of “You’re so full of crap your eyes are brown.”

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          It’s really difficult to believe you actually want me to buy that asinine song and dance. The logical fallacy here is your attempt to associate my reference to a Constitutional protection of individual rights with racism on some kind of moral-judgment level. That, m’friend, fits the very definition of race-baiting. It matches the formula for Godwin’s Law exactly, except that in place of Hitler or Nazis you’re comparing me to the KKK. Go suck.

          “[i]To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. See synonyms at blackball.[/i]”

          Yes, exactly. See those banners and splash pages? They say you [b]don’t get to deal with these websites as long as you use IE[/b]. That’s the [b]opposite[/b] of specifically trying to “deal” with IE users. Get a friggin’ clue.

          I’m done with this crap. Once someone consistently and persistently tries to skate by on blatant BS like this, it’s obvious that the person in question is more interested in some kind of back-patting sense of righteous indignation than having a reasoned discussion. Again, go suck.

        • #3157216

          They DO deliberately SEEK to deal with IE USERS!!!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          Their goal is [b]not[/b] merely to avoid IE users, but to coerce IE users into switching to FF. Such is [b]not[/b] a boycott.

          As for the “race baiting” charge, such is pure bullshit. You’re simply ignoring the fact that “freedom of association” is [b]not sufficient[/b] to justify and and all acts.

          Yes, my eyes are brown; that’s another thing that’s not by my own choice, just like my “race.”

          BTW, there’s genetically [b]no such thing as “race.”[/b]

        • #3157147

          Nice blanket assumption.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          You’re psychic now? You can tell me what people are thinking when they stick a banner on a page? You know for a fact that everybody with a Firefox button and a splash page or banner is trying to “coerce” someone into using a specific browser? You know for a fact they’re not trying to “coerce” them into [b]going somewhere else[/b] if they’re using IE and unwilling to get a different browser, or trying to “coerce” them into having a better browsing experience if IE doesn’t work as well with their sites?

          You’re wrong. I know you’re wrong, because I have a couple of Firefox buttons on one of my websites, and in relation to one there’s text suggesting that you’d have a better browsing experience if you chose another browser than IE — and only IE users see it. I actually got the idea from the “Explorer Destroyer” guys. I’m [b]NOT[/b] trying to “coerce” anyone to do anything. You’re full of crap. Accept it and move on.

          “[i]You’re simply ignoring the fact that “freedom of association” is not sufficient to justify and [sic] and all acts.[/i]”

          No, I’m not. In fact, I directly addressed that, and pointed out that [b]I never did anything like using it to justify any and all acts[/b], but you persist in trying to pretend that drawing parallels between an appropriate reference to freedom of association and racism is somehow logically supportable. Get off it.

          Damn. I was going to stop talking to you about this. Now look what you’ve provoked.

        • #3166228

          My focus is quite narrow; it does not encompass all that you address.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          My statements here re. intent relate [i]only[/i] to those who participate in the IE Destroyer campaign [b]and[/b] elect to use the “dead serious” option.

        • #3166126

          My focus is quite narrow; it does not encompass all that you address.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Race baiting . . . ?

          My statements here re. intent relate [i]only[/i] to those who participate in the IE Destroyer campaign [b]and[/b] elect to use the “dead serious” option.

Viewing 12 reply threads