What's Your Favorite Browser? [Archive]

starcraft.man

July 3rd, 2007, 12:47 AM

I prefer Epiphany, its so much faster than Firefox. :)

Firefox here have to love FLOSS, and I still think that on a reasonably modern PC it runs fine (my 5 year old one it does) with no slowdowns. I don't think my rig is that special.

Shack, I'm sorry but I fail to see how Opera is more "secure" than Firefox. If security is your game then NoScript, (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722) Ad Block Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865) and Cookiesafe (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2497) are the main ones for you. I know of nothing that makes Opera inherently more secure, being closed sourced certainly doesn't make exploits any less. If theres something in particular please say so.

LookTJ

July 3rd, 2007, 01:05 AM

The addons are what keep me on Firefox.

Tsen

July 3rd, 2007, 01:09 AM

Firefox. Themes, plus Adblock Plus and Filterset.g. I like a few other extensions, but those two are the deal-makers.

Shack_

July 3rd, 2007, 01:12 AM

Shack, I'm sorry but I fail to see how Opera is more "secure" than Firefox. If security is your game then NoScript, (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722) Ad Block Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865) and Cookiesafe (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2497) are the main ones for you. I know of nothing that makes Opera inherently more secure, being closed sourced certainly doesn't make exploits any less. If theres something in particular please say so.

The definition of security can vary, but here are Opera's statistics (http://secunia.com/product/10615/?task=statistics), and here are Firefox's statistics (http://secunia.com/product/12434/?task=statistics).

This is just my opinion, but I think the reason Firefox has so many unpatched advisories is because it's harder to coordinate with developers around the world than with developers for a single company.

starcraft.man

July 3rd, 2007, 01:40 AM

The definition of security can vary, but here are Opera's statistics (http://secunia.com/product/10615/?task=statistics), and here are Firefox's statistics (http://secunia.com/product/12434/?task=statistics).

This is just my opinion, but I think the reason Firefox has so many unpatched advisories is because it's harder to coordinate with developers around the world than with developers for a single company.

Just like the Vista comparison test by Jeff Jones, straight up Bugs are NOT a measure of security. Like the Windows comparison, your comparing apples and oranges, Firefox is FLOSS, all bugs are disclosed in the open (almost all found by users) and fixed as they are gotten to. Opera is closed and proprietary (and IMO that means they have an image to protect) but free, that means that bugs found in public are reported, while bugs discovered internally (by opera code team) can be patched without notifying the public (i.e. silent fixes, MS is famous for these. Where patch A fixes what it says plus error B and C or more).

Therefore, I am certainly never going to base my decision to buy/use anything off of bugs publicly patched/unpatched. Not to mention one can flip that and simply say that Firefox has found and is fixing more bugs and perhaps Opera has left holes they didn't disclose, you can't know since their source is closed.

IMO, it doesn't matter how many exploits exist, most if not all I've seen rely on javascript/XSS (cross site scripting) to one degree or another. No Script is a giant shield and blocks them all until you push "allow" (it is also incredibly smart, it filters every one by domain and you can selectively allow domains you trust and not others). That makes me feel secure, knowing I control the javascript/XSS.

Oh and btw, if I followed your logic I'd be on a Vista machine right now as to date it currently apparently (from the studies published) has the least publicly exposed exploits. That is if you trust publicly exposed exploits/bugs as a measure of security....

Anyway, carry on. I just wanted to point that out, security can never be measured by bug numbers its real world that matters, and no script handles the real world.

zoracite

July 3rd, 2007, 01:46 AM

Always used Firefox so it gets my vote.

igknighted

July 3rd, 2007, 01:58 AM

I primarily use Konqueror as my web browser, but I also use Opera as well.

%hMa@?b<C

July 3rd, 2007, 02:00 AM

dillo. Am I the only one?

illu45

July 3rd, 2007, 02:03 AM

I use FireFox. I've tried other browsers, and I liked Opera and Epiphany quite a bit, but I always missed my extensions too much to stick to something else.

kevinlyfellow

July 3rd, 2007, 02:03 AM

I mostly use firefox (would use epiphany if I could use the same extensions I use on firefox). But my favourite because it has gotten me out of jams so many times is Lynx. Oh, the number of times I mucked up X and looked up the solutions through Lynx....

Rhapsody

July 3rd, 2007, 02:20 AM

I use Firefox nearly exclusively, and have done for many years. In fact, it's the only application that was able to transition with me from Windows to Linux.

Edgeworth

July 3rd, 2007, 02:37 AM

Hex_Mandos

July 3rd, 2007, 03:23 AM

Firefox. I don't use proprietary apps if there's a good FLOSS alternative (Flash player will go as soon as I can get GNASH working).

Konqueror is very good too, I'd choose it over Opera. Neither of those supports TinyMCE editors, though.

mr.farenheit

July 3rd, 2007, 03:27 AM

i got hooked on lynx for a bit but i stuck with firefox

testube_babies

July 3rd, 2007, 03:32 AM

I can't tell you how many times I've "switched" to Opera. The Opera browsing experience is far superior (in my slanted and often very wrong opinion) to every other browser out there.

But for every time I switch to Opera, I switch back to Firefox because I miss my extensions.

%hMa@?b<C

July 3rd, 2007, 03:33 AM

ButteBlues

July 3rd, 2007, 03:38 AM

My favorite? Safari.

Favorite on Linux is FF.

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 03:56 AM

Opera is much better than firefox feature-wise and web-standards-implementation-wise, but I use firefox cause its open source, and I think a web browser should be open source. Plus opera is buggy in ubuntu (operapluginwrapper has crashed).

What I really want to address is all the people here using the ridiculous adblocker plus plugin. This plugin (and their recommendation of it) is another fundamental reason I approve of opera over firefox. Why would they advocate something that threatens to destroy the growth and prosperity of the very internet that enables them to exist? You people should not be using this plugin. Advertisements are what make the internet FREE. In a world where everyone used firefox and ad blocker plus you would have to buy subscriptions for nearly every website you visited.

Hex_Mandos

July 3rd, 2007, 04:03 AM

firefox isn't FLOSS it is OSS but not quite "libre" the Mozilla license is quite restrictive.

The MPL is FSF approved. It's a perfectly good weak copyleft license (weaker than the LGPL, but still copyleft, unlike BSD) which I'd use myself if I could code anything worth running (and didn't mind GPL incompatibility).

The Mozilla Firefox build, however, does include a couple non FLOSS bits that are taken out in IceWeasel (and maybe the Ubuntu build, I'm not sure). I don't mind them, though, as long as most of it is free.

FoolsGold_MKII

July 3rd, 2007, 04:06 AM

Firefox. Haven't had any real reason to change.

What I really want to address is all the people here using the ridiculous adblocker plus plugin. This plugin (and their recommendation of it) is another fundamental reason I approve of opera over firefox. Why would they advocate something that threatens to destroy the growth and prosperity of the very internet that enables them to exist? You people should not be using this plugin. Advertisements are what make the internet FREE. In a world where everyone used firefox and ad blocker plus you would have to buy subscriptions for nearly every website you visited.
I don't use Adblock because I personally couldn't give a toss. However, there are far too many sites out there who seem to rely SOLELY on advertising. That's nuts - I've seen sites which have a tech article I'm interested in, but stretched out to 10 pages or more with only a little bit of text per page and the rest covered in ads. Keeping in mind the people using Adblock wouldn't even have bothered to click the ads anyway, nothing was lost. They were never going to be sources of revenue for the site, so what's the big deal?

Sites on the net have a very Darwinian form of existence. If a site insists of being ad-laden to the point of congestion, I'll just go elsewhere, no skin off my back. Adblock empowers those who wish to use it - don't give excuses for the companies which bloat their sites with ads because they don't know any other way to survive.

starcraft.man

July 3rd, 2007, 04:08 AM

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/11275/0/smiley.gif
If the smiley didn't tell you, I use FireFox. The lack of stumbleupon and straightforward flash support keep me from using opera, which was my favourite browser on Windows.
That smiley I have to say is cute, saved.

firefox isn't FLOSS it is OSS but not quite "libre" the Mozilla license is quite restrictive.

Bleh, its a damn sight more open than Opera, IE and Safari. IMO its good enough.

Opera is much better than firefox feature-wise and web-standards-implementation-wise, but I use firefox cause its open source, and I think a web browser should be open source. Plus opera is buggy in ubuntu (operapluginwrapper has crashed).

What I really want to address is all the people here using the ridiculous adblocker plus plugin. This plugin (and their recommendation of it) is another fundamental reason I approve of opera over firefox. Why would they advocate something that threatens to destroy the growth and prosperity of the very internet that enables them to exist? You people should not be using this plugin. Advertisements are what make the internet FREE. In a world where everyone used firefox and ad blocker plus you would have to buy subscriptions for nearly every website you visited.

I'd debate you on features (I've never seen an opera feature that didn't have a firefox extension I don't think) but I'm tired tonight. No Script is one thing I know Opera doesn't have and IMO its better than the javascript on off switch Opera gives. I don't know where opera being more standards comes from, I've yet to see a page render in opera and not in firefox.

I don't think using ad blocker plus is ridiculous (I assume you were directing that at me, I think I'm the only one that mentioned it). I use it all the time. I block all the obnoxious flash based ads that play automatically with sound (I hate those with a passion). I don't click them anyway, and your only supporting them if you do click them, thus its a horizontal and neutral move on my part. Megaupload is one for instance, I don't feel guilty they make enough money... I also block pop ups, I won't support those. If I find a site I like I will support it with ads. Ad block plus allows for control, its not an everything or nothing thing. In addition, when I frequent a site daily or weekly the ads get annoying, so I just filter them off. If its a site I like I've already clicked them enough to give my support. I don't see anything wrong in what I do, I support the small quality sites I like.

One more thing, I give honourable mention to Epiphany. I just tried it again (hadn't tried it since last version I think) and I really like a few things it does, not changing though just know its a nice alternative maybe down the line.

Edit: Agreed with foolsgold. No site should depend entirely on ad based revenue unless it knows its capable of generating the daily traffic needed to support it. It shouldn't blame users if it fails to meet quotas. The plugin is out there and people use it (its consistently in top 5 firefox extensions).

Hex_Mandos

July 3rd, 2007, 04:15 AM

That smiley I have to say is cute, saved.

Bleh, its a damn sight more open than Opera, IE and Safari. IMO its good enough.

I'd debate you on features (I've never seen an opera feature that didn't have a firefox extension I don't think) but I'm tired tonight. No Script is one thing I know Opera doesn't have and IMO its better than the javascript on off switch Opera gives. I don't know where opera being more standards comes from, I've yet to see a page render in opera and not in firefox.

I don't think using ad blocker plus is ridiculous (I assume you were directing that at me, I think I'm the only one that mentioned it). I use it all the time. I block all the obnoxious flash based ads that play automatically with sound (I hate those with a passion). I don't click them anyway, and your only supporting them if you do click them, thus its a horizontal and neutral move on my part. Megaupload is one for instance, I don't feel guilty they make enough money... I also block pop ups, I won't support those. If I find a site I like I will support it with ads. Ad block plus allows for control, its not an everything or nothing thing. In addition, when I frequent a site daily or weekly the ads get annoying, so I just filter them off. If its a site I like I've already clicked them enough to give my support. I don't see anything wrong in what I do, I support the small quality sites I like.

One more thing, I give honourable mention to Epiphany. I just tried it again (hadn't tried it since last version I think) and I really like a few things it does, not changing though just know its a nice alternative maybe down the line.

On the first point, as I've said, FF is FLOSS for the most part, and the problem isn't the MPL. On the second point, Opera IS more standards compliant than FF. FF doesn't pass the Acid2 Test (but FF3 will). However, I should point out that neither Opera nor FF are as standards-compliant as Konqueror or Safari. Those are the only 2 browsers which can display shadowed text, which has been a part of the w3c standards for a couple years already.

starcraft.man

July 3rd, 2007, 04:22 AM

igknighted

July 3rd, 2007, 04:36 AM

On the first point, as I've said, FF is FLOSS for the most part, and the problem isn't the MPL. On the second point, Opera IS more standards compliant than FF. FF doesn't pass the Acid2 Test (but FF3 will). However, I should point out that neither Opera nor FF are as standards-compliant as Konqueror or Safari. Those are the only 2 browsers which can display shadowed text, which has been a part of the w3c standards for a couple years already.

Opera certainly has bugs with the standards... the overflow:hidden bug being the most annoying to me. But overall it is pretty damn good. Konqueror/Safari have some issues of their own. The really don't support many of the media types. Opera can mimic a handheld screen (Opera's mobile browser) and also handle projection media formatting when asked to do so. FF can /sort of/ do this with extensions, but Safari cannot at all. I haven't really tried with konqueror, but perhaps they added that in... not sure.

PS... does anyone know why safari has to make all text bold? That gets really annoying really fast.

RomeReactor

July 3rd, 2007, 04:45 AM

Right now I'm bouncing between Opera and Navigator, which is faster on my system than Firefox (really!); go figure.

Adamant1988

July 3rd, 2007, 04:51 AM

Either Safari or FireFox.

laxmanb

July 3rd, 2007, 04:55 AM

Opera. I like Wand for filling in passwords.

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 08:50 AM

[all the people defending adblock plus]
I understand the legitimate use for adblocking software. Pop-ups; annoying (btw most browsers have built in pop-up blocking). Flash banners with sound; annoying. I couldn't agree more. However, the earlier (might be different now) versions of the adblock plugin would block GOOGLE ads by default. No advertisement can be more subtle than google's small text ads.

Some websites, by their nature, survive entirely on ad revenue. Celebrity gossip sites, broad scoped technical support forums, sites that critique various things, blogs, etc. A browser that strives to be mainstream, and therefore has a huge impact on the life of the internet, should never make such indiscriminate adblocking software so easily available, period. I just don't think its a good idea for the health of the internet. And quite frankly I find their insensitivity towards this issue either immature or greedy. I don't know if they continue to support this plugin out of ignorance or out of greed (since its popular and will generate more users) but either way I dont find the choice very endearing.

(btw, before the barrage starts explaining the obviousness of this plugin being third party software, be aware that it is still the developers choice to allow it on their plugins website.)

FoolsGold_MKII

July 3rd, 2007, 08:59 AM

And quite frankly I find their insensitivity towards this issue either immature or greedy. I don't know if they continue to support this plugin out of ignorance or out of greed (since its popular and will generate more users) but either way I dont find the choice very endearing.
I'll put to you this question:

Do you think the developers of applications such as Azureus and uTorrent are also immature/greedy, considering the vast majority of cases for such software will be for use in downloading copyrighted/illegal material? Why do they bother to continue to support the software knowing what it will be used for?

(note: I know torrents can be used for legitimate purposes, but come on, I'm pretty sure most torrents out there are not).

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 09:27 AM

I'll put to you this question:...
The people that make torrent clients are fully aware of what it is used for, absolutely. But youre comparing apples and oranges since the azureus team cant control what people share. The firefox team is perfectly capable of removing this plugin from their plugins webpage. If people want to share it through other means afterwards then that is fine... they have at least satisfied their ethical priority and stopped distributing it themselves.

Afoot

July 3rd, 2007, 09:50 AM

Opera does have some really cool built-in stuff like the wand and speed dial, but that's about it. Firefox extensions > Opera's built-in. Whenever I'm in KDE (which is quite rarely) I use Konqueror, mainly because it looks so much sexier in QT than FF does, and Konqueror's desktop integration is just so brilliant.

cunawarit

July 3rd, 2007, 09:54 AM

dillo. Am I the only one?

I use Dillo on occasion; it is very useful on slow machines as long as you are using sites that don’t degrade too badly due to Dillo’s lack of CSS support.

If the Dillo project doesn’t die, and they manage to get CSS support whilst retaining their speed I can see it becoming one of my favourite browsers.

My favourite is Firefox, the developer extension is great!

cunawarit

July 3rd, 2007, 10:07 AM

What I really want to address is all the people here using the ridiculous adblocker plus plugin. This plugin (and their recommendation of it) is another fundamental reason I approve of opera over firefox. Why would they advocate something that threatens to destroy the growth and prosperity of the very internet that enables them to exist? You people should not be using this plugin. Advertisements are what make the internet FREE. In a world where everyone used firefox and ad blocker plus you would have to buy subscriptions for nearly every website you visited.

As a developer working for an online advertising firm, as well as make money advertising on my own pages I couldn't disagree more. If someone wants to block the ads it is up to them to decide... I serve a page to their browser; the user should be free to filter/alter that page any way they want before they view it.

It is unlikely that ad blocking will ever become the norm, and a few people blocking ads is not going to destroy a whole industry. Even if it did become the norm, the industry is dynamic, the industry would adapt and new ways of advertising would be devised. I am all for the freedom that Firefox provides, and that freedom comes with ad blocking.

awakatanka

July 3rd, 2007, 10:20 AM

Flock build on FF engine but starts 2 times as fast as FF and can use most of the plugins from FF. http://www.flock.com/
And Konqueror because it is the most usefull of all i can do all I need with it.

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 10:30 AM

As a developer working for an online advertising firm, as well as make money advertising on my own pages I couldn't disagree more. If someone wants to block the ads it is up to them to decide... I serve a page to their browser; the user should be free to filter/alter that page any way they want before they view it.

It is unlikely that ad blocking will ever become the norm, and a few people blocking ads is not going to destroy a whole industry. Even if it did become the norm, the industry is dynamic, the industry would adapt and new ways of advertising would be devised. I am all for the freedom that Firefox provides, and that freedom comes with ad blocking.
I'm not suggesting adblocking should be illegal or anything. I'm expressing my discontent with firefox for failing to recognize the ethical danger ad-blocking creates in light of either their flat-out ignorance to understand the issue or their ethically overpowering concern to win a popularity contest with IE.

Basically I see it as either they dont get it or don't care. And that bothers me.

EDIT: I added this after but its important. You said you doubt ad-blocking will be the norm? Youre probably right while IE remains the dominant browser. However, a fresh install of FF (on windows) directs you to their plugin page on first boot where adblock plus remains consistently in the top 5. FF's userbase is also growing everyday. I don't think its that far-fetched to suggest a dangerous amount of people may be blocking a good majority of advertisements if the trend continues. Especially since so many people fail to "care" about the consequences or sympathize with the webmasters.

MedivhX

July 3rd, 2007, 10:39 AM

Favorites:

Open source ———> Firefox
Closed source ———> Opera

brim4brim

July 3rd, 2007, 10:45 AM

Opera is more secure out of the box and has more features out of the box IMO.

I prefer it for that reason. Its also faster at loading pages IMO and also is an integreted bittorrent client, mail app, IRC chat and web browser in one application! Considering it does all this, it loads very fast and also you can script buttons for it and use widgets to extend functionality which is useful.

Opera also uses a lot less memory for me.

sw1995

July 3rd, 2007, 10:50 AM

Does anybody use Swiftweasel? I am beginning to wonder if everyone knows something I don't--in any event, Swiftweasel works very well on my computer.

S

Bothered

July 3rd, 2007, 10:55 AM

My favourite if Firefox. I also use Epiphany, which I've set up with less strict privacy rules.

I keep w3m on standby, but I've not needed to use it yet.

runningwithscissors

July 3rd, 2007, 11:46 AM

FoolsGold_MKII

July 3rd, 2007, 12:12 PM

********. There is nothing unethical about blocking advertisements. It's purely the user's choice. And Firefox enables the user to make that decision.
Offtopic - isn't it interesting that the swear filter blocks out the "s-word", but doesn't the moment you stick "bull" in front of it? :)

fuscia

July 3rd, 2007, 12:15 PM

ethical danger of adblocking? that would be hilarious, if it weren't so annoying.

epiphany, for now (which could change every five minutes for the next twenty years).

runningwithscissors

July 3rd, 2007, 12:17 PM

Offtopic - isn't it interesting that the swear filter blocks out the "s-word", but doesn't the moment you stick "bull" in front of it? :)Actually I had typed 'b*llocks' first (without the *, of course). And it showed up as a string of *'s. So I changed it.

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 12:22 PM

Bull**it. There is nothing unethical about blocking advertisements. It's purely the user's choice. And Firefox enables the user to make that decision.
This is a matter of opinion. If you had anything invested in a project that generated revenue from advertisements you might think differently. And even if you don't consider it unethical, you have to recognize the danger. Imagine if you could install one of these devices on your tv. Television wouldn't exist. Of course television companies are bothered by dvrs but dvrs hardly affect primetime which is their biggest source of revenue anyways. The same can be applied to radio.

Simply because you dont care or think it's "bull**it" doesnt mean its not a real issue... it just means you dont care because it doesnt affect you. And probably because you take the freedom of the internet for granted.

Besides you missed the point entirely. Im not arguing against the users RIGHT to use the software.. I'm arguing against firefox's decision to make it so easily available.. to the point that they almost advertise it themselves.

ethical danger of adblocking? that would be hilarious, if it weren't so annoying.
Drive-by insults with no constructive rebuttal are also immature, useless, and "annoying".

vbmds

July 3rd, 2007, 12:25 PM

My favourite is Avant browser, but as it needs wine to run under linux, I use Firefox with some plugins that make it behave very similarly to Avant browser. Only thing I can't seem to setup in FF is the ability to manually choose to block/unblock Flash, like in Avant.

brim4brim

July 3rd, 2007, 12:28 PM

when advertisers start behaving ethically, I'll worry about ad blocking.

cunawarit

July 3rd, 2007, 12:35 PM

I'm not suggesting adblocking should be illegal or anything. I'm expressing my discontent with firefox for failing to recognize the ethical danger ad-blocking creates in light of either their flat-out ignorance to understand the issue or their ethically overpowering concern to win a popularity contest with IE.

Basically I see it as either they dont get it or don't care. And that bothers me.

Well it is a complicated battle front, the Web used to be sort of a cyber-hippy playground, and now it is a marketer’s dream. It is to be expected that you get two camps fighting for their ground. I’m odd in that I am part of both camps, I wish the Web were as cool as it was back in 1994, and at the same time I rely on the online marketing industry to pay the rent.

It however goes both ways, too many advertisers don’t think of the user either. There are far too many flash heavy banners that can slow down the user if they aren’t lucky enough to have a fast new machine; some are even intrusive blocking actual content! The site’s designers are at fault too, if you tailor your adverts to your audience then it isn’t so intrusive, Google AdSense is great for this, but admittedly, it doesn’t pay that well and it is often abused by splogs and other AdSense farms.

Anyway, AdBlock simply isn’t a problem yet, if it were everyone would be bypassing it. AdBlock is a really dumb, all it does is block HTTP requests to certain well knows advertisers, if the ads are integrated into the content and served from the same server as the content AdBlock can’t do anything.

********. There is nothing unethical about blocking advertisements. It's purely the user's choice. And Firefox enables the user to make that decision.

Morality is relative to that extent it depends on you.

Personally I see no issue with blocking intrusive ads, or CPU intensive Flash crap. However, if there is a particular site that you enjoy and the site’s existence depends on the ads, and these are relevant to the site’s content, and not intrusive, then the least users can do is not block them.

PS: Personally I don't block ads specifically, but I do sometimes block Flash. As for the ads, I love them! It is what has allowed so many people to make a tidy on the side profit with their sites, if it weren't for ads the Web would not be anywhere near as diverse as it is... They also create problems, there's far too many scraper sites, AdSense farms, and lots of other spam crap out there...

xfile087

July 3rd, 2007, 12:40 PM

Also a Firefox fan here because of the extensions and themes!

Dark Star

July 3rd, 2007, 12:42 PM

Didn't used any other Browser in Linux SO FF ALL the way :)

runningwithscissors

July 3rd, 2007, 12:43 PM

This is a matter of opinion. If you had anything invested in a project that generated revenue from advertisements you might think differently. And even if you don't consider it unethical, you have to recognize the danger. Imagine if you could install one of these devices on your tv. Television wouldn't exist. Of course television companies are bothered by dvrs but dvrs hardly affect primetime which is their biggest source of revenue anyways. The same can be applied to radio.In fact, most early satellite television channels were free to receive and generated their revenue from advertisements. The subscription model pushed the lack of advertisements as one of the benefits, when it was first introduced. Of course, as we all know, now you pay a subscription fee and also have to watch mind-numbing advertisements for crap. It would be great if an ad-blocker were available for television as well.
If the user prefers advertising pushed upon him, he can choose to not use the ad blocker. It is a feature of the product that it allows you to do this and its entirely right that Mozilla make it easily available. The feature makes their product more attractive.

Simply because you dont care or think it's "bull**it" doesnt mean its not a real issue... it just means you dont care because it doesnt affect you. And probably because you take the freedom of the internet for granted.Indeed it isn't a real issue as far as I am concerned. The internet happens to be a publshing medium. It's neither designed to be pro or anti advertising. So it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect it to behave as such.

Besides you missed the point entirely. Im not arguing against the users RIGHT to use the software.. I'm arguing against firefox's decision to make it so easily available.. to the point that they almost advertise it themselves.It's a feature that makes their product more attractive. In this case, it has nothing to do with ethics.

Praill

July 3rd, 2007, 12:54 PM

...it has nothing to do with ethics.
As one poster already explained.. morality is relative to the effect it has on you. If IE came out with pre-packaged ad-blocking software tomorrow that made john doe's website revenues (his only source of income) almost non-existant, he might consider this a very important moral decision Microsoft has made.

I'm done trying to explain though. If you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't care, you don't care. And as the same poster already commented as well: once it becomes a real problem, something will most likely be done anyways. However, I still refuse to use the plugin, and look down on the firefox team for supporting it. Especially since I know they advertise it just to attract users.

runningwithscissors

July 3rd, 2007, 01:09 PM

As one poster already explained.. morality is relative to the effect it has on you. If IE came out with pre-packaged ad-blocking software tomorrow that made john doe's website revenues (his only source of income) almost non-existant, he might consider this a very important moral decision Microsoft has made.Nonsense. If your income depends upon nagging people with ads, expect people to work against it. Do you display such sincere sympathy towards spammers? What about door-to-door salesmen?

I'm done trying to explain though. If you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't care, you don't care. And as the same poster already commented as well: once it becomes a real problem, something will most likely be done anyways.So, it's not a problem for them, not a problem for me. Everyone's happy.

However, I still refuse to use the plugin, and look down on the firefox team for supporting it. Especially since I know they advertise it just to attract users.Great. That's how it should be. If you like being bomabrded with ads, you are free to make the choice. For those who don't there's always adblock software.

AndyCooll

July 3rd, 2007, 01:18 PM

This was the subject of a similar thread last week:
What is your default web browser? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=40611)

I replied Firefox in that one, and I'm saying the same in this one too>

:cool:

cunawarit

July 3rd, 2007, 01:35 PM

Nonsense. If your income depends upon nagging people with ads, expect people to work against it. Do you display such sincere sympathy towards spammers?

I can’t see how spamming can be compare to banner ads.

Ads on websites pay for the content that the user is reading, much like television. I am sympathetic to people with adverts on their sites.

I agree, people should be free to block adverts, just like they are free to switch away during ad breaks. But I totally disagree that ads on websites is in any way similar to spamming that costs the economy billions a year.

runningwithscissors

July 3rd, 2007, 01:43 PM

I can’t see how spamming can be compare to banner ads.

Ads on websites pay for the content that the user is reading, much like television. I am sympathetic to people with adverts on their sites.

I agree, people should be free to block adverts, just like they are free to switch away during ad breaks. But I totally disagree that ads on websites is in any way similar to spamming that costs the economy billions a year.Uh... they pay because the webpage is a carrier. You don't need one while delivering spam. All you need is the address of the recipient.

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2007, 02:01 PM

I like Firefox for the adblocking feature, however, I am using Opera mostly because I use the Windows portable versions on a flash drive and that version of Firefox is slow, otherwise I would use it all the time.

Firefox: Extension, Spellchecking (good for forums), adblock
Opera: Speed,Some widgets

By the way: for this adblock debate, what about Lynx? It doesn't display such things. (or people with no flash) (I also use Lynx)

cunawarit

July 3rd, 2007, 02:37 PM

By the way: for this adblock debate, what about Lynx? It doesn't display such things. (or people with no flash) (I also use Lynx)

I use Lynx, and Links surprisingly often. Links more often than Lynx mind you.

It is great for checking that sites you are developing make sense without styling and someone suing a screen reader would be able to navigate them successfully.

Also, it is great for reading BBC news using their low-graphic version of the site :)

smartboyathome

July 3rd, 2007, 02:52 PM

I use Opera because FF always freezes on my comp. Plus, I don't generally have time to get add-ons, and didn't use this feature, so the lack of that teather let me switch easily. Also, I am more comfortable in Opera, as FF is too bloated for my taste.

LaRoza

July 3rd, 2007, 02:55 PM

I use Lynx, and Links surprisingly often. Links more often than Lynx mind you.

It is great for checking that sites you are developing make sense without styling and someone suing a screen reader would be able to navigate them successfully.

Also, it is great for reading BBC news using their low-graphic version of the site :)

Firefox has a Lynx Viewer extension, it is close to what the site would like in Lynx.

This is good for Development along with the Web Developer extension and IE tab.

Damanther

July 3rd, 2007, 03:11 PM

when advertisers start behaving ethically, I'll worry about ad blocking.

I'll second this one. What kills me is that we are at the point in our society where more money goes into advertising than in actual product development/design/quality etc. But, thats a different rant for a different thread.

Also, I wish I had a Ad-Blocker for the junk snail mail that stuffs my box every day as well.

Damanther

Damanther

July 3rd, 2007, 03:14 PM

As one poster already explained.. morality is relative to the effect it has on you. If IE came out with pre-packaged ad-blocking software tomorrow that made john doe's website revenues (his only source of income) almost non-existant, he might consider this a very important moral decision Microsoft has made.

I'm done trying to explain though. If you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't care, you don't care. And as the same poster already commented as well: once it becomes a real problem, something will most likely be done anyways. However, I still refuse to use the plugin, and look down on the firefox team for supporting it. Especially since I know they advertise it just to attract users.

Quote from a good friend of mine:

"The difference between morals and ethics, is that I have morals."

Damanther

crimesaucer

July 3rd, 2007, 09:50 PM

Does anybody use Swiftweasel? I am beginning to wonder if everyone knows something I don't--in any event, Swiftweasel works very well on my computer.

S

First off...I love the bad brains...

Anyway, I just installed Swiftweasel and it seems very fast and stable, I also am trying out Swiftfox, but I think Swiftweasel feels faster....

I still have all of my extensions, plug-ins, and "about:config" settings from Firefox 2.0.0.4, but now it's even faster.

....and I always had page loading times as fast as Opera and Epiphany.

sw1995

July 3rd, 2007, 11:48 PM

First off...I love the bad brains...

Have you heard their new album? It is incredible!

S

SunnyRabbiera

July 4th, 2007, 12:22 AM

Intranet Exploreder!

Nah kidding, I am often switching between Firefox and opera, right now my primary browser is firefox but mainly because its stable on my current distro PCLOS

crimesaucer

July 4th, 2007, 12:39 AM

Have you heard their new album? It is incredible!

S

No, I listen to all of the old stuff from Quickness (Soul Craft) back to their early 1980 stuff...Rock For Light being my favorite album.

I also used to listen to HR's reggae albums, and saw him sing some dub/illbient in SF back in 1999...when he did a show with Saul Williams and Angelo from Fishbone (playing solo as Dr. Mad Vibes)...

But I didn't know that they had a new album out, is it the whole original band? I never listened to any of the stuff without the original bad brains...

and as for Swiftweasel... man, it's fast like Dr. Know's guitar playing.

...plus, look at it:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-22-13.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-22-12.png

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-28-10.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-28-9.png

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-29-10.png
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/crimesaucer/Screenshot-29-9.png