FireFox arguement [Archive] - WebDeveloper.com

Poegle

12-20-2004, 12:32 PM

Once again a Firefox arguement is starting to come about on a forum I shown you all a long time ago, which resulted in the majority of the people who came there from here banned.

The admin has now came back with these points:

Firefox user are worse than Christians.
http://i.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/columbia/praying.jpg

"Firefox is so great, I shall follow the geeks blindly"

Firefox has bugs the other day I had some javascript written exactly to w3c standard and IE did the exact right thing and firefox didn't it didn't even give me an error in its debugger as its so perfect that it doesn't admit when it's wrong.

If firefox had half the hacking attempts that IE has on it then it'll be just as bad.

We've had this arguement so many times now I'm getting quite bored of it all.
-------------------------------------------

Yes we have had this arguement lots of times before but theres never any points on why FF is worse than IE...and they usually end up being locked after a short time.

He is still so sure that IE is far better than FF, and that FF is worse..

so he posted this link
http://asia.cnet.com/enterprise/apps/0,39035809,39200961,00.htm, have a looksie for yourselves. It is so near impossible to get anything through to this guy about FF he just goes on and on that its geeky and wont accept that its better for web dev.

And it really does annoy me when he always bans the person, or locks the thread if hes getting alot of hassle through it. Its like a forum where you cant have your own opinions. You all have to follow the master admin, as many of them do... any of you guys have the same views as this guy or do you guys also get annoyed with people like this?

:mad:

baseiber

12-20-2004, 01:13 PM

who cares which is better. The important thing is that the application will work for the people who use it.

rsd

12-20-2004, 03:26 PM

Amen to that, brother!

ray326

12-20-2004, 04:15 PM

IE hasn't been updated in 3 years and won't be for another 2 at which time the "upgrade" will be "buy a new OS." FireFox doesn't have big security outfits saying "run ANYTHING but this" but that's exactly what they're saying about IE. More importantly, even average people are starting to see the light and IE's market share is actually starting to drop off. What really scares these "one browser to bind them all" is that they have their whole little lives invested in a piece of software. How sad. Every once in awhile I feel sadistic and sort of poke 'em just to listen to 'em whine but generally I just leave them to wallow in their own misery. It doesn't make for a very enlightening place when the trolls are the moderators, though. Much like the inmates running the asylum.

-- Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.

Stephen Philbin

12-20-2004, 06:41 PM

Very well put Ray. I must admit I do like to screw with this guy for personal entertainment now and again, but on the whole....... F*** 'em.:D

Ben Rogers

12-20-2004, 08:01 PM

I, myself can't stand Internet Explorer. It's slow to load, it has no tab support, it's ugly, it's CSS support has made my knuckles bleed (indirectly, of course. :p), and its bookmark functionality blows in comparison, whereas Firefox snappily loads, has multiple themes (many of which are brilliant), has to-the-t CSS support, and has RSS bookmarking as well as a clean, flexible bookmark interface. While the Java and Javascript support of FF sometimes annoys me, that's more Sun's and the script writer's fault- besides, that's all that bothers me about teh Fox. Plus, FF is free, and merely suggested to me- IE belongs to a monopoly (can't blame 'em for it, but I can sure hate 'em for it) and was shoved down my throat. This is, of course, not even mentioning the FF extensions.

I don't understand why it's still an argument. Opera versus FF, I can understand. People have preferences, you know? It's like pitting a butterfly versus a switch. They're both nifty, but I prefer one over the other, clearly. IE versus FF is like pitting that butterfly against a peice of rather dull and slightly melted crayon. It's there, and it serves its purpose... just not very well.

Poegle

12-21-2004, 08:16 AM

Ok people use it for browsing sites as they do, but I mean hes going on about making sites. He is a "pro" that makes websites in IE. He doesnt like FF because it "messes up things"

"Firefox has bugs the other day I had some javascript written exactly to w3c standard and IE did the exact right thing and firefox didn't it didn't even give me an error in its debugger as its so perfect that it doesn't admit when it's wrong."

Compguy Pete

12-21-2004, 09:33 AM

I cant say the guy is totally wrong... What would happen to FF if people spent as much time finding it's faults.

The tact that this guy should take on that javascript is to realise that it doesn't work for some reason and perhaps he should figure it out.

From what I've seen as a developer and a PC builder IE overall is fine... it's when the rest of windows breaks you have a problem.

baseiber

12-21-2004, 09:39 AM

Forget IE and FF. Lets all switch to crazy browser. :D

Actually I don't know how good crazy browser is. All I know is that it's weird when instead of getting a popup you get a tab.

m_estrugo

12-21-2004, 09:49 AM

I'd prefer to skip the arguement of which browser is better or worse to pay attention at the changes on browser usage this could mean.

By taking a look at some stats, I've realized that, while MSIE is still the leading browser, Mozilla usage has grown. In other words, an increasing percentage of users will have problems trying to display a web design made to fit MSIE's approach to web standards. It seems that percentage is going to grow on a few more months.

This is yet another reason to be careful, to get a copy of every and each popular browser out there and tinker with your design so to make it compatible with the biggest possible percentage of users out there, including both MSIE and Mozilla.

Poegle

12-21-2004, 09:52 AM

Yeah I do that for what browsers I have got so far:

Opera
Firefox
IE
Konqueror
Fireforx on linux
Netscape 7.1? I think it is, im on linux at the mo and cant be arsed going over to windows to have a look.

Is there any others I should download?

m_estrugo

12-21-2004, 10:05 AM

Yes. Download Lynx (http://home.pacific.net.sg/~kennethkwok/lynx/), a text-based browser. If anything, it will give you a clue on how your site looks when you're disabled and can't rely on images to surf the web.

NogDog

12-21-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Poegle
Ok people use it for browsing sites as they do, but I mean hes going on about making sites. He is a "pro" that makes websites in IE. He doesnt like FF because it "messes up things"

"Firefox has bugs the other day I had some javascript written exactly to w3c standard and IE did the exact right thing and firefox didn't it didn't even give me an error in its debugger as its so perfect that it doesn't admit when it's wrong."
Hmmm...to the best of my knowledge, w3c has nothing to do with JavaScript standards. They define the <script>...</script> tags which allow you to embed JavaScript (or other client-side scripting languages), but the JavaScript standard is defined by ECMA (http://www.ecma-international.org/). This in no way proves or disproves the original author's claim as to whether or not FF handled his JavaScript incorrectly, but it does raise a question as to how truly standards-compliant his code was or was not.

ray326

12-21-2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by NogDog
Hmmm...to the best of my knowledge, w3c has nothing to do with JavaScript standards. They define the <script>...</script> tags which allow you to embed JavaScript (or other client-side scripting languages), but the JavaScript standard is defined by ECMA (http://www.ecma-international.org/). This in no way proves or disproves the original author's claim as to whether or not FF handled his JavaScript incorrectly, but it does raise a question as to how truly standards-compliant his code was or was not. Well, what it shows pretty conclusively is he doesn't know what he's talking about. Now if he'd mentioned something about the DOM binding in Javascript he'd have a smidgen of credibility and maybe even a valid complaint but I'm sure that's over his head.

steelersfan88

12-21-2004, 03:03 PM

"Microsoft Hater 1st Class" ... maybe that is why you disagree with the article. I find the article to be a great one, and I definately agree. However, he did leave out all of the numerous problems Firefox causes, which I won't get into again.

Ben Rogers

12-21-2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
"Microsoft Hater 1st Class" ... maybe that is why you disagree with the article. I find the article to be a great one, and I definately agree. However, he did leave out all of the numerous problems Firefox causes, which I won't get into again. Well, then where did you get into them originally? I'd like to hear these problems- they've been absent from my experience with the Fox.

Poegle

12-21-2004, 03:45 PM

same ere ide like to know aswell

ray326

12-21-2004, 03:57 PM

The biggest problem for Microsoft is that it doesn't require the use of their operating system and it doesn't let them pop up their ads on MSN. :D

steelersfan88

12-21-2004, 04:26 PM

The arguments against the entire Mozilla branch are somewhere hidden on the FS tech forums. Upon my own discretion, I decided not to shun fellow administrators with my beliefs. However, they've been pasted here quite a few times by other users. Most commonly with a username beginnign with a "t;" that's all I can say.

steelersfan88

12-21-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by ray326
The biggest problem for Microsoft is that it doesn't require the use of their operating system and it doesn't let them pop up their ads on MSN. :D Microsoft hasn't moved that far yet. That eould be breaking the monopoly law pretty much, monopolizing its products to create one dominant company. Ignorance of the corporation's intentions might have made you find this to be a problem ...

Ben Rogers

12-21-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
monopolizing its products to create one dominant company. Ignorance of the corporation's intentions might have made you find this to be a problem ... 'Cuz they would NEVER create a monopoly... :rolleyes:

steelersfan88

12-21-2004, 06:39 PM

They would definately create a monopoly. It is the law that is only holding them back. The only reason people use Macs (including myself) and Apple exists is because of law. You think Netscape or Mozilla would exist if monopolies were legal ... I think not.

Ben Rogers

12-21-2004, 07:36 PM

Probably true. Most people don't so much as offer an alternative... and [minority companies, i.e.: apple, mozilla] didn't have the money to put out frequent advertisements. You're starting to see some now, but... Take for example the name of the leading browser: "Internet Explorer". Does it sound like a program? No, it sound like this is what's used for the internet. Like "windows explorer"- it's what you use to explore your files on windows. It's very misleading, or at least it was to me. Hell, if they changed that name to something more appropriate, I'd hate it a lot less.

Stephen Philbin

12-22-2004, 12:13 AM

I can't say I've ever had any accessibility problems with Firefox. As for the Javascript not working, it shouldn't matter anyway. If it matters whether your javascript works or not, you're making a bad page.

baseiber

12-23-2004, 08:28 AM

My partner and I had some design problems with FF. Our project was designed to work with IE. When our boss opened it in FF the tabs and the footer were wider then the rest of the page.

ray326

12-23-2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by baseiber
My partner and I had some design problems with FF. Our project was designed to work with IE. When our boss opened it in FF the tabs and the footer were wider then the rest of the page. That's the problem with most newbies. If you write to standards instead of browsers then you greatly reduce that kind of extra work.

steelersfan88

12-23-2004, 03:20 PM

You realize you are calling the poster a newbie, where it is quite possible their credentials are much higher than yours. I do agree with the second statement somewhat; however, I it isn't true.

If you code for standards, it is probable that 95% of your users won't get it to turn out completely right. If you code for browsers, it is just the opposite. Despite the correct choice being standards, it increases work to get it IE-compatible.

Ben Rogers

12-23-2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
You realize you are calling the poster a newbie, where it is quite possible their credentials are much higher than yours. I do agree with the second statement somewhat; however, I it isn't true.

If you code for standards, it is probable that 95% of your users won't get it to turn out completely right. If you code for browsers, it is just the opposite. Despite the correct choice being standards, it increases work to get it IE-compatible. He's a newbie to standards, it seems, so the statement is accurate enough. As for your argument- I think that's bull. Building a site logically, then hacking into IE's logic works a lot better than doing whatever bull IE wants, then trying to push it around so it makes sense and doesn't at the same time.

steelersfan88

12-23-2004, 05:55 PM

I didn't say it was right. I just said if you are concerned with limiting your work, code for IE, than make necessary changes.

Do the other way is much more difficult. Of course, these are opinions. I guess for those who understand the way IE operates because of my past, I might have more knowledge in getting IE to comply to "IE's standards." Regardless, it has to be done, that is, making code work for both browsers.

However, it is not accurate calling him a newbie to standards. I am not by any means a newbie to standards ... but I still code for IE, then if time permits, make changes for other browsers.

ray326

12-23-2004, 07:07 PM

However, it is not accurate calling him a newbie to standards. I am not by any means a newbie to standards ... but I still code for IE, then if time permits, make changes for other browsers. Then you're doing more work than you need to. At any rate 99% of the people who code for a specific browser are developing sites that are fairly content free because they think the only thing important about a web page is the way it looks and acts rather than the content it contains.

steelersfan88

12-23-2004, 07:39 PM

Indeed , but whats to say he isn't one of the 1% ... ?

Ben Rogers

12-23-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Indeed , but whats to say he isn't one of the 1% ... ? Common sense.

steelersfan88

12-23-2004, 08:17 PM

no, assumption

Ben Rogers

12-23-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
no, assumption Common sense is behind that assumption, however. For example, I assume you are a male. You've been referred to in the male sense, and don't seem to exhibit any female tendencies, other than indecision and denial of it... but of course grouping that as female is sexism; just as many males excercise the annoying trait as do females.

ray326

12-23-2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
no, assumption Actually it would be probability. I have a 99% probability of being right by guessing as I did; a much better probability than me getting a 10% raise come March. :D

MstrBob

12-23-2004, 11:12 PM

It has been my experience that standards-coding and then IE fixes results in faster completion. IE actually behaves (well, as much as IE will behave) pretty well when you code to standards. You start getting really weird stuff when you make browsers guess. There are certain things I know IE can't do, and won't even try. Others, I know simple fixes for. IE's double float margin is one. Instead of fiddling around, looking for what might work or seem right, or finding the right hack, I simply include a little line to make it behave. But I know it will work, because I'm coding to standards. A combo of standards coding first, and a knowledge of common IE quirks makes page creation remarkably fast.

However, coding for IE first makes it longer for cross-browser compatibility, since IE makes a bunch of assumptions. So, if you're coding for any browser other than IE (which you should - coding for only one browser on the internet is simply inane) standards expedite the process, and produce more uniform results.

ray326

12-23-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88
no, assumption BTW, I also assume you're an IE expert and since I am not but I do have to use the thing as well as FF, is there an IE toolbar equivalent to the Web Developer extension to FF? Is there an imbedded proxy server available for it that works the way the Live HTTP Headers extension works?

steelersfan88

12-24-2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by ray326
BTW, I also assume you're an IE expert and since I am not but I do have to use the thing as well as FF, is there an IE toolbar equivalent to the Web Developer extension to FF? Is there an imbedded proxy server available for it that works the way the Live HTTP Headers extension works? Nope, not exactly. There are some alternatives, but they don't have nearly the same effect. My profile might hint at at, so the assumption is based on fact.