Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

Another quality update from the Mozilla Mouthpiece.

"Before IE was illegally bundled with Windows, no one was on the web using the Netscape browser."

The Netscape browser had to be purchased. IE forced to become free.

John goes on to say that "The mere notion that such consumers are somehow so skewed by the mere inclusion of a software default that competitors can't gain traction is RIDICULOUS?"

Yeah...like iTunes is more popular than Windows Media Player...and now Firefox is gaining market share inspite of IE being bundled with Windows.

Amen.

On *nix, you don't even need a browser to download and install software.

Uh, actually, as someone who worked at SpryNet between CompuServe's purchase in early 1995 & its demise in late 1998, I can tell you that Netscrape was already doomed to fail, thanks to its bloatedness and non-conformity W3 standards. MS-IE wasn't available in the OS until Win98, and that's why everyone loved to bundle us, because we shipped IE to them. Recalling back to those days, I specifically recall Microsoft treating us like a valued customer with quarterly summit meetings, while Netscape never offered to give us the time of day.

Not sure what you mean by "illegally" bundling either ... how would that be different than a browser company with 70+ percent share bundling an email application?

I was recently reading an article about windows being slower and slower because they keep bundling and adding over 500,000,000 lines of code.. what is windows coded in anyways???

So you can't download things with the Windows command line ftp program ?

Don't forget that it wasn't the bundling of IE that was illegal, it was Microsoft's behavior towards OEMs. Microsoft told OEMs that they had to bundle IE with Windows to the exclusion of other browsers or face losing their Windows license. (Of course, they didn't necessarily or always come out and say it, opting rather for subterfuge and FUD.)

That was also the primary reason for locking IE into the OS. It made it technically unfeasible to remove it in favor of any other browser without potentially compromising the integrity of the OS.

Well, aside from the security issues which didn't really become problematic until later, IE5 was technically superior to Netscape 4 (though IMO NS4 and IE4 were roughly equivalent). Unfortunately, Microsoft wasn't willing to win on merit alone, so they resorted to strongarm tactics, and were eventually convicted of illegally abusing their virtual monopoly in the desktop market to obtain a monopoly in the web browser market. Then they stopped developing their browser because they'd won, the market stagnated, and eventually the security situation became bad enough that one of the alternatives -- which had actually kept improving itself over the last few years -- finally managed to gain some traction.

well, the quote might be a bit over the top, but the point is not soo wrong. after a fresh install of windows I DO use ie to download firefox. it would be a pain to do this via some command line stuff or ftp, even more if you think of your mum ;)

I don't care if IE is bundled with windows - as long as you're not forced to use it.

Asa is right in that, technically, people did alright without Internet Explorer. Mind you, maybe they didn't do great, but it was OK. Microsoft is definitely not a savior or innovator or anything like that when it comes to browsers. However, I also agree with Kelson above -- Microsoft developed a browser that for some period of time was technically superior. And I also agree that Netscape was slowly disintegrating with each new release. But Microsoft has totally abandoned its userbase when they "won" the "browser war", and Microsoft is largely responsible for plaguing the World Wide Web with non-standard HTML, even to this day.

And that's the real problem with Microsoft -- they view everything as a "WAR". They think only in terms of "winning" and "losing", and thus they truly idiotic in that regard.

The real fact is that often multiple implementations can serve slightly different categories of users very nicely, while competing in a friendly manner, without any aggressive anti-social behavior that Microsoft is well known for. The real fact is that software industry is all about serving the user and is NOT about winning wars. And it's not about suffocating all your competitors. It's all about writing great software that is joy to use, even if only a small percentage of people use it. It's definitely not about subotaging open protocols and it's not about the CEO calling "UNAMERICAN" people who donated their time.

Microsoft, as a personality, is completely delusional paranoid. It believes everyone is out there to attack them (Microsoft thinks: "Well if I was the other guy, wouldn't I cut Microsoft's oxygen supply off??? OF COURSE!! Wouldn't I laugh over the dead corpse of Microsoft? Heck yea!!! Oh right, since I'd do that if I was the other guy, it must mean they will do that to me. So that means I must do it to them first before they get a chance to do it to me.. I will suffocate them all before they suffocate me. It's KILL OR BE KILLED. It's a WAR OUT THERE!!! @#$@#@"). It's constantly hallucinating and it lives in a reality distortion bubble. It hates anyone and anything that isn't Microsoft. It's always on the prowl to see what else it can kill or destroy or rape or WIN. It really doesn't care one bit about the user, but it does care about itself and about its own stock price. And Microsoft really does make technically decent products from time to time. Sure, they seal our data in secret data formats, but at least the GUI to edit that data is pretty decent. Sure, Outlook is buggy and is a security hole, but it's convenient and it does have a nice calendar. Sure, IE is a banner "Spyware, rootkits, trojans, phishers, PLEASE PLEASE COME HERE AND RAPE ME", but it's installed everywhere and it does work. It works especially well with IE-only non-standard HTML.

That's the story of Microsoft. Technically they can make some pretty good things, but meanwhile they destroy the social fabric and suck the life out of any industry they enter.

When anyone criticizes Microsoft, they NEVER EVER admit to any mistakes or being wrong or anything like that. Ever. Unless maybe 5 years have past and it looks like it's an admition based on some prolonged self-reflection and not a humble response to external criticism.

You really don't need to be a "Mozilla mouthpiece" to notice it.

Immaculate Conception said "The Netscape browser had to be purchased. IE forced to become free."

Wrong, Netscape was free for non-comercial use.

Asa,

I originally started to read this blog to gain insight into the workings of mozilla, and to stay on top of its products development and its releases. Unfortunately this last week (and prior) seems to have to turned it into an anti-MS blog which just doesn't sit well with me, at all. I don't come here to read how mad you are at them or to hear you rant about them.

I came here for Mozilla information. Since that is now in the minority, I'm removing this page from my bookmarks and will no longer be a daily visitor.

Should the blog return to what it used to be, I may return then as well.

And Leo, go get your own blog, stop posting your holier than thou rants about how evil non-open source software is. Life is more then software, no matter the philosophy behind its development.

Heh. I remember back in the day using Hyperterm (or some better variant of it, whose name I've long since forgotten) to browse BBS's and download content. If Microsoft really wants to bragg about something, they should bragg about helping to make network hardware easier to setup.

The idea that OEMs couldn't possibly install browser, IM, or even ftp software without Microsoft's help is pretty laughable.

"I originally started to read this blog to gain insight into the workings of mozilla, and to stay on top of its products development and its releases."

Actually I don't think it's a bad thing that you don't have to come to this blog if that's what you're looking for. The Mozilla quality assurance blog and developer blog now have the information needed (along with the wiki, meeting minutes, etc) to stay on top of Mozilla development. That's the way it should be - Asa's blog has, in theory, always been a personal blog, and the fact that it was also a unique source of semi-official project information wasn't necessarily a good thing.

Now that it's not so necessary to read Asa's blog for the project information, it's even more clear that this is a personal blog. If you don't want to read it, that's fine (and if you feel the need to comment that you're not reading it, also fine), but I don't think it makes sense to criticise Asa for expressing his views on a personal blog...

Ffs, it's a friggin' operating system. "Oh noes, they're shipping Linux with Firefox!"

jeradc,

Thanks for the advice (I'll refrain from calling it "holier than thou"). My intent is not to show that closed source software is evil and open source is good. If I really thought closed source was evil, then I wouldn't be writing closed source at my day job, now would I? And, like I said, I used to be a fan of Microsoft.

What I see is that every time Asa criticizes something, everyone is trying to shut him up. I really don't care for that and I doubt I ever will.

To summarize:

1. Microsoft is particularly hostile (ah, I actually don't like to use the word "evil" very much) and non-cooperative of any closed source vendor and definitely deserves some special attention.

2. Closed source vendors can write good sofware and they can, at times, offer good support too. But what's completely wrong is to claim that by simply having an entity with a monetary interest behind some software automatically makes that entity behave in a very responsible manner. That's completely false (*cough*Adobe*cough*). Real fact is that you can play phone tag for a week, easy, with many closed source vendors before you get your answer. I've never, ever had that kind of experience with an open source project. Even in the laziest most defunct project I, so far (and maybe I'll discover something otherwise later), got traction in days. The cool thing also is that with open source project it's all honest. If I write a question, it might not get answered for a while, but no one will ever play a deceptive phone/email tag with me, pretenting to answer my question, while really not answering. Oh, and the Indian help desk is something I actually ran across, I seriously couldn't easily understand the guys I got (and I am against outsourcing, so call me biased if you want, but that's a whole another topic). So all that stuff is from my life. Real stuff.

3. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's technically superior, but you can't argue that the intent of releasing software under an open source license is in and of itself a very noble intent. The intent to keep software source closed is anywhere from neutral to hostile, depending on how much advantage is taken of that closed nature.

Firefox crashes sometimes. And Asa likes to rant. But honestly I would rather be in the company of people like Asa, including all his rants x10, and I'd rather use Firefox, which was created with real love that I can feel.

So, my own useless opinion is, take this site off your bookmarks and be happy. If you're trying to use removal of your readership as a threat to force Asa to write on topics you want to hear about on his personal blog, then you are really on crack. This is not a Mozilla blog. If you want Mozilla news, read mozillazine.org. If you want more detail, follow Bugzilla. This is Asa's blog where he posts about his hobbies and family and whatever else he likes. It just so happens he also likes to post about his job.

> Microsoft was managed by lawbreakers and thugs who strong-armed OEMs

This is the whole point. MS is run by its marketing department, and it's the main reason 99% of their released software turns out crap. If that marketing department was put on a leash and muzzled (and some of the people in it deserve to be too...), MS might actually get a decent product out once in a while (or at all).

When will Firefox start shpping with OSX?
If every OS can come with its own browser and media player why cant Windows?

I still think it's funny when comments are longer than the post.

I remember the days that i got for free a CDROM with Compuserve software, which had the Netscape browser hacked in, indeed for free!.....till today i'm using the mail account i set up at the time...speak 1993 or so. Regrettable Compuserve dropped Netscape over IE and till now, it still uses that ruddy engine whenever i fire up Compuserve mail, albeit, since i installed the IE7 beta, its actually using that engine....lucky me ;>(

BTW, when are the grippies brought back into the FFX browser by standard....i really miss, to this very day.

> If every OS can come with its own browser and media player why cant Windows?

I think you meant to say "If every OS can come _without_".

Just two points to raise.

1. This is Asa's personal blog, not an official Mozilla blog. Asa can write whatever he pleases.

2. If IE wasn't so crap and bloated, there would be no need for alternate browsers. So I'm thankful IE is so bad :D

> If every OS can come with its own browser and media player why cant Windows?

> I think you meant to say "If every OS can come _without_".

OSX comes with Safari and iTunes.
Not with Firefox and RealPlayer.
Granted they are not as popular as MS but they still do the same thing MS does and can get away with it!

IQ70:

Bundling is both
(a) Something you can do with impunity under ordinary circumstances
(b) Something a court can enjoin you from doing if you break certain laws.

IQ70: "If every OS can come with its own browser and media player why cant Windows?"

That is a good point. I think it is merely the fact that Windows is used by about 90% of computer users, and so to increase the market share of its own products it starts bundling them in.

Though, Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows earlier than 98. Certain versions of Windows 95 came with IE3. I remember our home computer that we got in 1996 had IE2.0. We then used that to upgrade to 3.0, but I wasn't aware of Netscape until someone asked if I had it. That said, Netscape 4 did become heavily bloated, and Netscape 3 I didn't like all that much (IE3 supported more).

Also wasn't there a time when IE was being bundled with Mac OS?

I'm not saying that I support Microsoft bundling IE, but whenever I think of unbundling it is a case of "Well then, what would your joe average user use to access the web?" Albiet, OEMs and ISPs do bundle browsers.

Both IE and Netscape were bundled with some of the later pre-OSX versions of Mac OS, and IE continued to be bundled with OSX until Panther. (Interestingly, if you installed the Classic environment, you'd get Classic versions of both Netscape 4 and IE 5, though neither of them seemed to work quite right under OSX.)

Somewhere around here I have Netscape .9 on a floppy. I wonder how John
would explain how I got that back in the early 90's, long before there was an IE.

(except for very rudimentary pages, that old version is rather useless now)

Never did like IE since it first came out - still don't.

Why is everyone so upset about this issue?

Microsoft should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to marketing and packaging products. It's a company, not a government. And we are its customers, not its populous. Simply boycott their products, if you disagree with their principles.

As for governments, they should be able to make whatever laws they need to ensure the livelihood of their populous. If a company cannot operate in one country because of the rules, then it can find another country. If a company cannot find any such country to legally operate in, then that company will be forced to either go out of business or start a new country (or operate illegally).

Thus, there are two avenues for displeased customers to take--each with similar efficacy. Customers can change their buying habits or they can lobby their government for change. Blogging does not fit into either category. Blogging is simply for personal expression, and I suspect rarely results in any real change in the physical world. (But it sure is fun!)

Microsoft bundling IE was not ruled illegal. The court also disagreed that they were using their monopoly to extend into the browser market. Please get your facts straight.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269179.html

Byron wrote:

# Microsoft should be able to do whatever they want
# when it comes to marketing and packaging products.

No, they should not be able to engage in collusion, price-fixing, or restraint of trade when it comes to marketing and packaging products.