Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

BTW: There is a bugfree programm. It's TeX :-D

I think I wrote a bug-free "Hello World" program once. :-D

Even that response reflects back to Asa's incorrect post about tabbed browsing history, which still hasn't been corrected.

Opera has an MDI [multi-document interface] UI; it doesn't have tabs.

Um, Chris, Opera very much has tabs, as you would know if you'd used it for two seconds or so. It had and still has an MDI in addition to having tabs, which it had before Firefox but after Avant Browser (an IE shell), which I believe was the first to extend the concept to browsing. I'm not really an Opera advocate, but it's ridiculous to claim that Opera doesn't have tabs, or even that its tab features aren't lightyears ahead of Firefox's by default.

That said, I primarly use Firefox, not Opera. Yay TMP!

Um, s/Avant Browser/Netcaptor. Sorry about that. I stand by the rest of my post, though.

Can someone explain to me why it matters so much who invented tabs? I mean, I agree that we should endeavour to correct the record when the error mis-credits us just as much as when the error is not in our favour, but it seems like there are lot more interesting differences between Firefox and Opera than the order in which _neither_ of them "invented" tabbed browsing.

But now I'm spending time on this ridiculous debate too, so who's the greater fool?

Mike

confusing.. but whatever. WorldWideWeb browser probably better supports html than all browser and it was developed back in 1990's

I've used Opera - not as much as Firefox - but MDI isn't tabs - it may look like tabs, but you don't get Firefox displaying popups within the MDI like Opera does.

And I'm not trying to create a flame-war or anything - I just know the difference.

Dear God, can we just drop the debate on tabs? Everyone unambiguously has tabs now, except for IE. (Opera has both tabs and MDI, depending on how you use it.) Neither Firefox nor Mozilla (nor, IIRC, Opera) is claiming to have invented them, and the "who had them earlier" debate hinges on definitions.

(Incidentally, this is at least the second post of Asa's in the last few weeks dealing with the Firefox vs. IE debate that has gotten derailed in the comments by the Firefox vs. Opera debate. What the heck, people?)

Why does this matter?

You guys sure are giving this myth guy alot of blog press...

Chris, tabbed browsing means you can open multiple documents within the same application window, and switch between them from a separate toolbar with tabs, instead of the system task bar. Opera does that, isn't it a tabbed browser?

Your argument is currently that Opera doesn't have tabs, because it opens popups - all - everything - within the same window. WTF, isn't that the point? :P You're saying it should open new windows to be a tabbed browser... like Firefox.

Regardless, 1.5 seems to be pretty widely recieved as a poor release: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175007152&pgno=1

wow.. i need to pay more attention.. while reading this if you look where those ads are you'll see a bitch author bitching about firefox sucks (which is a totally different browser is you ask me)

is you ask me? you say might, what can that be i see a bug on the window what can it see is a bee or is a dee?

Instead of attacking myths, why don't you attack real bugs! Like this one, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213534 , which has gone unfixed in Windows for years.

I think addons.mozilla.org sucks. they reject perfectly good themes and extensions.. or atleast imo they keep the "pending approval" until the author jumps off a balcony. which is annoying and sad at the same time..
but also forums.mozillazine.org sucks the most nothing but f@tasshole users who are shallow minded and will let a good idea go to shite becuase of there ignorance.

btw if this message disapears i know something is going on.. but! firefox is best, you know why the community makes it that way. whoraaay for firefox.

The author of this article may has posted the it in numerous forums under the name 'Mastertech', and quite possible under other names too.

http://205.177.13.145/forums/viewtopic....0&sid=69429bc27a4d79f6cad6ad16552b38f9

http://www.digg.com/software/Firefox_Myths

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=33&threadid=1759805&enterthread=y

The intention of these postings has been called into question many times: the article is on a commercial site, and the poster seems to love creating rather heated threads.

Ironically, the Google ads which appear on the site seem mostly to be Firefox adverts!

As to Mastertech's history, this may prove interesting:

http://205.177.13.145/forums/viewtopic....0&sid=3e56c67c75cfc8b502b7f20e463f863a

Note that suspicions have been aroused that the same guy who wrote the Firefox Myths page is also the author of a blog page where a strong anti-Firefox bias has been expressed.

Here I posted this on Roberts Blog too:

This page just provides opinions and no facts that disprove anything on the original Firefox Myths page. Why is this worthless blog linked to so much? It is all BS.

1. Those are the requirements for IE. You can run Windows 98 on a 486 with 16MB of RAM.

2. Did you even READ the speed test? Not only is IE faster than Firefox at loading but it is faster in everything but script speed. And since it is obvious you did not read any of the sources. Opera is faster than both of them.

3. Your rant about security disproves nothing on the Myths page. Firefox is NOT a secure web browser.

4. Again just because you have not heard something does not mean it is not said. What kind of argument is that? If I ask my grandmother something and she never heard of Firefox does that mean it does not exist? Please.

5. What was your pointless comment about Tabs supposed to mean? The Myth was that FF was not the first browser with Tabs and you go on to mention Seamonkey? What the hell was the point of that? It is a fact Netcaptor and Opera had tabs before FF.

6. I almost fell out of my chair with this one. You never heard people say FF fully supports standards and IE does not? You must live in a very closed circle of friends.

7. Interesting all those Standards on that page have changed as has the Myths page to coincide. It doesn't matter though, it is nice to see all the FUD about firefox and standards debunked. FF clearly does not fully support standards.

8. Lastly you make another useless fact less based rant about web page compatibility yet don't disprove a single thing.

Seriously was this blog made out of desperation because you don't include a SINGLE fact disputing a damn thing. Pathetic. I even see Aza linked to this. You guys are grasping at straws as this Myths guy just exploded all you fanboys dreams. Too funny.

I'm pretty sure Thor is in fact the author of this article, aka Abdrew. He has also posted in support of his own article under the name Mike G. on Roberts blog. This was proved by IP check to be him. Can you do the same thing here?

Andrew K., the author of Firefox Myths, has a very extensive history of lying about his identity. He has gone under the names Andrew (claiming to be a different Andrew from the author), MasterTech, GeneralAres, FFeLEET, Realist, Mike G., and probably others. MasterTech now admits to being Andrew K., but he used to pretend that he wasn't, referring to the author as "this Myths guy" and using "he" instead of "I". IP checks have confirmed all but Andrew and GeneralAres to be the same person (and those two just haven't been checked).

Thor's latest comment uses the exact wording and style Andrew K. usually uses. I'm pretty certain it's him again.

A 30 second Google search revealed that Mastertech's Opera profile lists the home of 'Firefox Myths' as his homepage:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:mxmlPDn76eEJ:my.opera.com/Mastertech/+mastertech+opera&hl=en

Predictably, this was changed the moment someone on the Evilavatar forums exposed him:
http://my.opera.com/Mastertech/about/

For the record, this is the moment "Mastertech" got wrecked on Evilavatar:
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8269&page=14&pp=10