Mozilla vs. IE ???

[PhillyKev 0]

Regarding pop up blocking by Mozilla:

How about wanted pop-ups? Does Mozilla give you an option to disable the blocker for certain sites that you need pop-ups to work? And does it alert you when it blocks one in any way?

What about compatability in a business environment. Are there problems with web enabled apps (I'm sure there are) but what kinds of problems?

[jdfreefly 1]

When I first started using mozilla, I found quite a few sites that didn't work. Now, they all seem to have fixed the problem. All of the bussiness sites I use have fixed their Mozilla compatibility issues.

The pop-blocking does in fact give you the ability to allow pop-ups from sites you list. It doesn't tell you when it blocks them though since that would get as annoying as the pop-ups themselves.

Once you get used to using Mozilla, you will never want to use another browser.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jfields 0]

My office is 100% IE, now that I've converted my Linux test boxes back over to Win2k Server.

We use a proxy filter at work that blocks most of the pop-up junk. It is configurable, so we can set it not to kick on on sites where we need the pop-ups or other features that we would regularly block. It cuts my pop-ups down to virtually none. I have used the google toolbar for awhile, so I set it up to block pop-ups as well. It does let me allow specific ones if I want them. Between the two tools, I get no unwanted pop-ups.

At my office, we have encountered a few problems with total pop-up blocking. Some websites use pop-ups to do web-enabled support chats. Some financial sites use them in different ways as well.

I can't really address how Mozilla deals with these situations, since we don't use it. We used to have some Windows boxes with Netscape, in addition to the Linux test machines. No more. While I can understand departing from the mainstream (straight Wintel w/ IE) for personal use, I don't see any valid reasons to do so for desktop business boxes. There are so many compatibility issues with industry-specific applications and clients that it isn't worth even trying. We aren't here to have cool desktops or slick Linux kernels. We are here to work.

[PhillyKev 0]

Thanks...

I'm asking for a business environment. I'm in the process of developing a new standard desktop image at work and wonder if I should even consider Mozilla. (That's why I can post whore so much. Lots of rebooting, ghosting, rebooting, installing, rebooting, ghosting....).

What's the difference between Mozilla and Phoenix? Just the GUI?

[jfields 0]

Quote

When I first started using mozilla, I found quite a few sites that didn't work. Now, they all seem to have fixed the problem. All of the bussiness sites I use have fixed their Mozilla compatibility issues.

I guess it is partly a philisophical difference. You see the sites as having fixed "their" problems. I see it as Mozilla being the problem. In our business situation, we simply cannot afford to suffer through any of those issues at all. So we stick to what works on the biggest percentage of sites, and on the sites that are critical to our business. For us, that is IE.

Personal use is different, where each person can make their own choice and live with the results.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There are so many compatibility issues with industry-specific applications and clients that it isn't worth even trying. We aren't here to have cool desktops or slick Linux kernels. We are here to work.

I agree completely. The only reason I may consider it is that one of the biggest complaints people here have of what interupts their work is:
-pop ups, spam, printing in IE (ugghh).

Of course that doesn't stop them from downloading 85,000 smiley faces for Outlook that dumps spyware all over the place

[Blahr 0]

Quote

My office is 100% IE, now that I've converted my Linux test boxes back over to Win2k Server.

I dont know what to say...this is more horrible news than anything else I've heard today so far.

My sincerest condolances on your loss.

[Blahr 0]

Quote

We aren't here to have cool desktops or slick Linux kernels. We are here to work.

We ARE here to hopefully make the world a better place. Supporting companies with abhorrant business practices, no ethics whatsoever, and only marginally good products doesnt further that goal.

It might be easier to just go with the flow but in the long run it does more harm than good.

The work CAN get done on other operating systems. Very effeciently too.
This is kinda like recycling. Most people blow it off because its harder to deal with even though intellectually we all have to agree that its a better idea.
We are all lazy at heart and naturally gravitate toward the path of least resistance.
But we dont HAVE to. We CHOOSE to be this way.

Just my humble opinion. It never seems to be all that popular so I dont think I'm damaging myself any by sayin so

[jfields 0]

Quote

My office is 100% IE, now that I've converted my Linux test boxes back over to Win2k Server.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont know what to say...this is more horrible news than anything else I've heard today so far.

They were a test. They failed. Running them as Linux was neither cheaper nor easier when the total cost was calculated. They weren't any more secure than a properly-configured and maintained Windows box either? So why make extra trouble?

I'm not saying my results are applicable for every enterprise. They aren't. But for our situation, Linux didn't do the job as well as Windows. It was worth a shot to test them, but we are going to stick with Wintel. I know, geek heresy.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Of course that doesn't stop them from downloading 85,000 smiley faces for Outlook that dumps spyware all over the place

The fact that you used a smiley to convey your message in that post is wonderfully funny.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Blahr 0]

Quote

I know, geek heresy.

Yeah! What kinda geek are you anyway???!?
Well, you are still numero uno on the folding page!

I'm all the way up to 12 or 13 though. All on Linux and BSD boxes!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yeah! What kinda geek are you anyway???!?

Probably one that wants to keep his job. As many problems Wintel has, it really does blow away any other options when it comes to familiarity for the users and cross-application integration.

[Blahr 0]

One could reasonably argue that this is because people keep going with the flow.
It only supports my argument

Your statement seem to indicate a belief that people will lose their jobs if they challenge the status quo.
This may be true in some cases, but the fact it, the people that make the hiring and firing decisions are not usually the ones that have a say in the technologies being used. They care about results, thats about all. You can get the results either way.

By the way, I am engaging in an intellectual debate here. I dont want to offend anyone

Not till I have enough jumps under my belt, anyway!

[Aviatrr 0]

Is it just me.....or is anybody else totally in the dark here? I understand a few of the words/phrases.....but not many! The only computer programming I do is based on 3 to 5 letter identifiers - and that's just to tell the airplane where to go! I think I'm still living in the stone age here....

Mike

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I guess it is partly a philisophical difference. You see the sites as having fixed "their" problems. I see it as Mozilla being the problem.

I don't.

HTML, WEB, and HTTP are all standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium. Mozilla follows the standard better then IE.

If I site works in IE, but not in Mozilla, then it was designed for IE. Designing for a particular browser is never smart, programers should code for the standard and expect the browsers to work. Where browsers don't work, a workarounds are permitted as long as those workarounds don't break OTHER browsers.

Code to the standard, everything works. Code to a browser, and things get screwed up.

When I wrote www.littletikes.com, www.rubbermaid.com, and www.gracobaby.com, we coded to W3C compliant standards. We never had interoperability problems with any browsers that couldn't be easily fixed.

Proramers who code to the dominant browser are lazy.

As for pop up blocking in Mozilla, they do tell you when they block one, an exclamation mark shows up in the status bar bottom right. Click the exclamation mark to enable pop ups for that site.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jfields 0]

Quote

We ARE here to hopefully make the world a better place. Supporting companies with abhorrant business practices, no ethics whatsoever, and only marginally good products doesnt further that goal

You see it as a cause, where I see it as a business decision.

Quote

It might be easier to just go with the flow but in the long run it does more harm than good.

To whom? If I go with non-compatible software, establish a convoluted and difficult to support system, what happens when things go wrong? Do I tell the boss that we are striking a blow back against Microsoft? It doesn't matter, because I'd be fired. Not fired for choosing or not choosing them, but for making a decision that isn't in the best interest of the company.

Quote

We are all lazy at heart and naturally gravitate toward the path of least resistance.

Is it lazy, or is it smart? I could strike it up as an issue at my workplace and try to be the Linux posterboy. I would have to work longer hours to maintain two entirely different systems, convince my coworkers that they also need to work more, and guarantee that the changes will benefit the company.

Personally, I work enough as it is. I want to go skydiving, or go spend time with my family. Linux as a cause is not worth that precious time. I'm not against it as an OS. Had our research shown it was a good choice for us, we would go with it. But it didn't, and it isn't fair or smart for me to try to force it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Your statement seem to indicate a belief that people will lose their jobs if they challenge the status quo.

My boss makes 5 million a year. He makes the decisions about who to hire and fire. If I replace his browser and he has to learn new ways to do the same thing, he's not happy. If I replace a server, and the interface is slightly different, he's not happy.

Let's say he works 80 hours a week....that's about right I think. If I make a change that takes him an hour to learn how to use, that costs him $1200. Not to mention everyone else around here.

They're not here to learn how to use new programs. They're here to do their job. It's my job to enable them to do that, not push my personal agenda regarding the direction of technology.

If I could find cost benefit justification for making changes, that's what I'll do. Otherwise, sticking to the status quo is my job.

[Blahr 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess it is partly a philisophical difference. You see the sites as having fixed "their" problems. I see it as Mozilla being the problem.

I don't.

HTML, WEB, and HTTP are all standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium. Mozilla follows the standard better then IE.

If I site works in IE, but not in Mozilla, then it was designed for IE. Designing for a particular browser is never smart, programers should code for the standard and expect the browsers to work. Where browsers don't work, a workarounds are permitted as long as those workarounds don't break OTHER browsers.

Code to the standard, everything works. Code to a browser, and things get screwed up.

When I wrote www.littletikes.com, www.rubbermaid.com, and www.gracobaby.com, we coded to W3C compliant standards. We never had interoperability problems with any browsers that couldn't be easily fixed.

Proramers who code to the dominant browser are lazy.

As for pop up blocking in Mozilla, they do tell you when they block one, an exclamation mark shows up in the status bar bottom right. Click the exclamation mark to enable pop ups for that site.

_Am

Dude! I couldnt possibly have said this better. 100% agreement.

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree too. But my company cares not. They need to use a particular website to get information. That website designs it for IE. That's what works. If I change their browser and it stops working, I can's say, "Well, they need to fix their web site. Until then you're SOL."

My choice? Open standards world. Reality? Whatever is easiest for my clients, otherwise, they aren't my clients.

[jfields 0]

Quote

I guess it is partly a philisophical difference. You see the sites as having fixed "their" problems. I see it as Mozilla being the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't.

HTML, WEB, and HTTP are all standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium. Mozilla follows the standard better then IE.

If I site works in IE, but not in Mozilla, then it was designed for IE. Designing for a particular browser is never smart, programers should code for the standard and expect the browsers to work. Where browsers don't work, a workarounds are permitted as long as those workarounds don't break OTHER browsers.

Code to the standard, everything works. Code to a browser, and things get screwed up.

Andy,

My comment was in the context of my workplace. I agree that coding to standard is better practice. But not everyone does, and due to our business, we have to work with some of them anyway. As you noted, there are also the places where the dominant browser doesn't function to standard. In some situations, it might be best to code within the standard, but omit the part of the legitimate realm of code that causes the most popular browser to glitch. That way, you are both within standard and friendly toward the masses, however misguided they may be.

[AndyMan 7]

Then submit a bug report to that website, because if it is not standards compliant it's broken. It's their responsibility to make their website work, not yours.

Oh, I forgot to mentionI also coded www.molson.com to be compliant, when I worked there. Standards compliancy is not rocket science.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It's their responsibility to make their website work, not yours.

That's where you're mistaken. It is my responsibility to make sure that my clients can use their web site. They care not about standards or compliance. They care about getting their work done. If I told them it's the web sites fault, that's viewed as an excuse, not a solution.

[Blahr 0]

jfields and phillykev.

I hear you both.
I dont think that everyone should immediately change everything to suit my personal view. Ok, yes I do

Justin, I dont see it as a cause, I see it as a path.
I'm not one of those new age, freaky guys withn an empty life that needs a cause to fill the void. I have plenty to keep me busy

Kevin, I'm not suggesting pushing a personal agenda. I'm suggesting people look for good sound business reasons to make a change. They do exist. Change is always hard and frought with a million difficulties. But change is good.

Large companies with unethical, immoral, tyrannical business practices should be boycotted until they knock it off.
Microsoft has some good products. I wont pay for any of them until they start playing nice with others.
I'm not an open source freak. I love it, but I have room in my life for both models. Fact is, open source has caused companies like microsoft to have to improve their products. Competition is a good thing.

I dont mind paying money for software as long as I'm not giving it to organizations like Microsoft. Until they see the light, that is. When they stop trying to rule the world and the internet, I will happily pay them for a good product. A product that also plays nicely with others.

[AndyMan 7]

The only reason I recomend people use Mozilla is because it's better. It's got more features, renders quicker and more accurately.

I don't give a rats ass about politics, about giving Microsoft support or not. Business people make business decisions, not political ones. Any product needs to stand on its own merits.

If Moz doesn't work for you, then fine, use IE.

However, I would be very short with a business partner or company who is forcing me to to use a specific product. It's MY business decision what to use, not theirs.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jfields 0]

To extend what Kevin said and add my own...

Quote

Your statement seem to indicate a belief that people will lose their jobs if they challenge the status quo.

First of all, they can. My workplace, like this website, is no damned democracy. That isn't saying they are ignorant about technology. They wouldn't even blink if I made changes and had a good reason for doing so. But I'd better have a good reason.

I don't know how much my boss makes. But like Kevin's, I have to be cognizant of what I ask of him.

Part of my job is to act as a technological bodyguard for him. Instead of pushing the technology at him and keeping him bleeding edge, I test and retest everything to maintain the status quo for as long as I can. I upgrade him when security issues force me to, or when an end-of-life product has a clear, stable and tested replacement.

My boss doesn't care about what is cool on the computer. Neither do any of my salaried coworkers. Pretty much the only people that do are the hourly admin support staff, and frankly, their opinion doesn't count. Sounds harsh, but it is true. My job is not to cater to their whims. It is to provide the most stable, consistent, familiar and efficient computing platform I can that fulfills our needs with the least effort on the part of my users.