Lessons from Firefox 3

Summary: I just downloaded the Firefox 3 browser, and if there were problems with their servers before, there certainly are no problems today. The download clocked in under 5 seconds (I do have a fast connection, admittedly), and the install was done in less than a minute.

I just downloaded the Firefox 3 browser, and if there were problems with their servers before, there certainly are no problems today. The download clocked in under 5 seconds (I do have a fast connection, admittedly), and the install was done in less than a minute. Quite impressive for any piece software, though particularly well-done for something as critical as web browsers.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow comparison of the features compared to IE or Safari on Windows, as that's not my thing, and other people for whom it is their thing would do a much better job of it, anyway. It is on my system, however, and I will use it. If I like it, I will find that it starts to be used more and more.

I am sure, however, that Microsoft wishes they had maintained the standards support of their web browser rather than allowing it to languish in non-standard purgatory for as long as they did. Credit for the fact that Microsoft is pushing forward with better standards compliance is due exclusively to the folks at Firefox. As I've noted in the past, it's less likely people would have paid much attention to Firefox if Microsoft had maintained its lead in standards support that it achieved with IE 4.0.

Firefox demonstrates the importance of having platforms that people are allowed to customize. That's considered normal in desktop computers and servers, and few companies would dare to release a system that placed limits on the types of applications that could be installed. That isn't the case, however, in cell phones. Google is trying to change that through its Android initiative and the pressure it has put on the FCC to force telcos to allow any phone to connect into their networks. Pushing the other direction is Apple, which though boasting the sexiest phone in existence, also backs a model where Jobs and company controls what is officially allowed onto their Apple-logoed creation (and given the money he gets from telcos for the privelege of shipping an iPhone, is likely to bar things like VoIP clients). As a developer, that's something that concerns me.

Firefox shows that the open source community can challenge even pre-included (and undermines demands for less pre-inclusion among fans of antitrust, but that's a discussion for another day). Firefox is fast approaching the level of Adobe's PDF reader, something that few people get as part of a Windows machine, but practically everyone at some point downloads. Granted, there isn't the "hook" that comes from the fact that you can't read a PDF until you download that plugin, but if you notice the amount of coverage Firefox's record download figures are getting across major news sites, it sure seems like Firefox doesn't need that hook. It makes me wonder what the community could achieve if one Instant Messaging project could focus the energies of like-minded developers the way Firefox has.

Firefox also shows, at least to me, that the future does not lie in protocols unique to your products that you don't tell anyone else about. The future, in my opinion, lies in companies that understand that computing is so ubiquitous that it demands open protocols. Products that do a good job of being reliable stewards of that principle end up building the key infrastructure that meets with explosive success upon release. Those that build closed systems, particularly those made by platform companies, end up ignored.

The world has changed, and companies that understand it will make it a habit of using open protocols, even if that protocol was developed in-house (there is nothing wrong with releasing information to the public for protocols developed within the company). Those that don't will persist in building closed systems, all the while asking themselves why their solutions aren't catching fire the way they expected.

Don't get me wrong - money is important. I think there are huge benefits to be derived from finding ways to monetize software as such. One way that used to work, however - namely, the software equivalent of ink cartridges that only fit one brand of printer - simply does not work anymore. There are other ways to monetize software as such. Closed and secret protocols is no longer one of them...especially in core communications infrastructure.

NOTE:  I was going to post this in Firefox 3, but the site through which I post my blog uses a self-signed certificate, and I get a message that gives me no way forward without clicking the "Add Exception" button and doing...something that isn't all that clear from the resulting dialog box.  I'm sure I'll figure it out later (don't have time right now), but it is a bit odd.  I should have the easy option of continuing to the site without going through a configuration step, if I so desire.

Partial screenshot shown below:

Odd Firefox Security error

Topic: Browser

John Carroll

About John Carroll

John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

67 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Firefox 3 is OK - IE7 still better!

    Comparing Firefox 3 with IE7, I find that IE7 displays web pages much better. I'm looking forward to IE8 when it becomes available. As usual, Mozilla Firefox is still a novelty.
    cnfrisch
    • huh?

      Are you talking about the same IE7 everyone else uses? Or are you just referring to sites that were designed with trillions of hacks to exploit quirks in earlier versions of IE? If you mean really standards-compliant web pages, IE7 is way behind in the race.
      derekerdmann
      • re: huh? tRu dAt

        If you think that was mind blowing, check out this quote from "cnfrisch ".<br>
        [pre]

        [/pre]
        <a href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-13615-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=48841&messageID=912063&start=0">"When will people wake-up and see Windows Vista as the best, most secure, operating system currently available? "</a>
        n0neXn0ne
        • Wow, mindblowing...

          The guy likes Vista since it works for him. Wooow

          I guess unless you're bashing Vista you're not cool.

          please
          tikigawd
          • Liking Vista is one thing...

            Calling it the best and most secure OS ever is another.
            storm14k
          • Amen!

            Well said...
            Kromaethius
      • Much closer than IE6

        Indeed, it is behind - but it's not as horrific as IE6. My CSS for IE6 was six times the size of what I needed for IE7.
        CobraA1
    • disagree

      I'm gonna disagree - how "well" a web page displays is largely based on the author of the web page and not the browser. When authors design for one browser and ignore other browsers, then yes, other browsers won't display it so well.

      "I'm looking forward to IE8 when it becomes available."

      As do I. FYI, it will display pages more like Firefox than like IE7 . . .

      Microsoft, like everybody else, is pushing towards displaying pages using W3C standards. They've been the slowest to do so, but they're doing it. Hopefully, this will mean that future web pages will not suffer from compatibility differences between browsers.

      "As usual, Mozilla Firefox is still a novelty."

      This "novely" has close to 20% of the market, and the percentage is still climbing. The numbers aren't in yet, but FireFox 3's launch may have grabbed another good sized chunk of users.
      CobraA1
      • Firefox numbers

        Prior posts on the numbers indicate that firefox is being adopted very quickly, that this 20% represents a six month, more or less, adoption rate. Sadly, the monopoly position is being eroded precisely because competition motivates adaptation and innovation.

        Perhaps bundling the browser into the operating system is a choice but the results seem to dictate something other than innovation.
        jns_45K@...
    • Only thing FF is missing is Protected Mode

      I use FF despite the fact that it does nothing to protect my user files should any malware get through. Add Protected Mode to FF and that would eliminate the only "negative" thing I can say about FF.
      NonZealot
      • Install NoScript

        Installing NoScript will go a long way to protect your system. I always use it on every system.
        linux for me
        • Already done

          I like NoScript (and use) NoScript and I agree that it goes some of the way to protecting your system. It falls short in a few ways though:
          1. I don't believe NoScript is great for newbies. Let's be honest, many sites don't work with NoScript and this could be frustrating for those who don't realize the benefits that NoScript brings.
          2. What happens when a site you trust gets hacked and starts delivering malware? Assuming you've disabled NoScript for that site, you are in danger.
          3. Several of the most dangerous attacks don't use JavaScript as an attack vector. The libPNG vulnerability immediately comes to mind although there are plenty others.

          Using NoScript reduces the chance that you will get hit with malware. Protected Mode does nothing to reduce your chances of getting infected but it does really limit the damage that can happen if you do get attacked. This is exactly the principle behind chroot. chroot doesn't make it any more difficult to hack into a machine (if an exploit exists, it will still work against a chrooted service) but chroot greatly reduces what the exploit is able to accomplish.
          NonZealot
    • 4.3

      Cary, leave the parody to Mike Cox.
      Yagotta B. Kidding
    • Not even close

      Firefox 3 is highly customizable. I can add or remove any icon to any toolbar, re-arrange the toolbars into the manner of my liking, add functionality through add-ons like AdBlock+, FlashBlock. Greasemonkey, and NoScript.

      With IE7, I'm highly limited in the layout options without editing the registry to put the menu bar back where it belongs (above the address bar) and moving the stop and refresh buttons where they belong (to the left of the address bar).

      And as Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has already shown, Firefox 3 beats IE7 in the ACID Test, Java speed tests, and memory usage.

      The only reason I still use any version of IE, and even then it's IE6, is some websites critical to my job will only load applets and frames properly within IE6. I know it's the fault of the site developer, and I've been asking them to update so I can eliminate IE entirely, but until that happens, I'm stuck.
      MariusSilverwolf
    • You have got to be joking

      I develop web applications, Firefox is by far the easier to develop for.
      tracy anne
    • IE7 is better for many web pages

      IE7 renders all web pages done with MS Office, FrontPage and Sharepoint Designer correctly.
      Firefox 3 cannot do this and Firefox never has. Since I do all my lesson material in with these programs, I have my students use only IE.
      Why Firefox reviewers never test this aspect and never comment on it is a mystery to me.
      I still try each version, but I am always disappointed.
      UDHSS
      • IE better for MS-Created pages, you mean

        Should it be considered a negative that Firefox doesn't render webpages created using non-standard coding methods as well as IE does?

        Everything you mentioned is a Microsoft product. Of COURSE IE is going to render those pages properly. It's a proprietary, closed system being used to create pages for a proprietary, closed browser.

        When comparing the latest versions of the 4 major browsers, IE7 conforms to the least amount of industry standards. The fact that people still take the shortcuts you mentioned for building pages, instead of using more standardized methods, only adds to the problems Microsoft is experiencing while trying to build IE8. Too many pages have been built using non-standard code that only displays in the locked-in versions of IE, and the process of converting to standard compatibility is going to be undoubtedly painful.
        MariusSilverwolf
      • I think you missed the point of John's post.

        All of what you say is true except that it all relies on proprietary markup and calls that aren't supported by any known open protocol.

        Let's not even start to mention the utterly atrotious HTML that Front Page and Office produce.

        There are very few sites available on the Web that rely on these apps, even fewer when the server is Apache because that means having to install Front Page Extentions which open up a whole mess of security issues. (Active X anyone?)

        Quite frankly you'd be better doing your lessons using Dreamweaver and leaving it to your students to decide which browser they wish to use.

        ttfn

        John
        TtfnJohn
    • I have the opposite view

      This is the first version of FF that I have tried and on my machine, it loads initially much, much faster than IE7 and refreshes more quickly as well. I like the clean layout and the easy customization. Because I like FF so much, I'm trying out T.Bird as well but I have not yet configured it as I would like it. I'm sure I'll get there and when I do, I'll drop both IE7 and Outlook primarily because of the improved speed and better look and feel. PS: I am not an MS basher, I just like products that work best for me and right now, I would be happy to recommend FF to anyone.
      jamestbaines@...
  • (moving)

    wow, we have an edit button now! Moving my post to the correct location . . .
    CobraA1