View Full Version : Mozilla Sucks?

09-27-2003, 01:20 PM
Mozilla sucks. I've dealt with their development team first head. They believe there browser is better than anything. They actually believe the browser "war" is still going on and they can win. It's bloatwear, firebird is small but the rendering isn't that great. Worst of all the interfaces are horrible. Even some of the team members ditch on their own product in their weblog. The interface is made up of XML and it's slow. XML was not designed for thosands of lines and is slow. IE is also more stable. It's just for linux kiddies and that small nitch crowd. IE is probably the best product that Microsoft made. It's by far more stable that any browser I've ever used. As a web developer that works with Macromedia Adobe I think I qualify to pass judgement.

That group just doesn't get it. They don't seem to understand what consumers needs. it's nothing but a geek browser, for nerds. I'm so over being cool by using the alternative.

Someone posted that on my site. I was just wondering how many people agree with anything he's saying here.

Personally I can't imagine why anyone would hate Mozilla. Maybe the suite is slow, but firebird is mighty fast for me... And he said the renderer isn't very good? :confused:

09-27-2003, 02:40 PM
Well, that's another opinion. The only thing I don't like about Mozilla is the response time. If a tab is busy I cannot access to it so I have to wait for the browser to read. I love Opera though. The rest of my family use IE and they will never change that. IE's icon is their door to Internet and I have given up trying to show them the others. They just don't like changes. They get lost. :thumbsup:

09-27-2003, 03:16 PM
I found the transition from IE to Firebird extremely easy. After I installed 2 extentions (the "copy image to clipboard" one, and the "middle click drops the anchor for scrolling like IE does" one) I was set.

Response times I suppose could be a problem. I don't seem to experience it. When they're loading I can still click the tab and see the half-loading... I use FB 0.6.1 though.

09-27-2003, 03:57 PM
Well, I doubt he's dealt with their development first hand, as they are a really large project. He might have dealt with a couple of individual developers, and that's all.

He's right about most of them believing their browser is better than anything, but they aren't the ones to glorify it either. They are comparing their browser to the others (iew, iem, op, saf) as well as with many different xml user agents (Too many to mention) and they are aware of most of the faults of their browser. Taken altogether, though, I think they're right in their assessment. Their browser is the best when it comes to all factors weighed together, although maybe not when it comes to specific factors. And they are continually trying to improve it, in difference to a company that I shouldn't need to mention the name of...

As for them believing that the browser war is not over, they're pretty disillusioned when it comes to this. They know they will have a hard time to achieve anywhere near the percentages nn2-4 had in it's glory days. However, the browser war ISN'T over, or they wouldn't be here at all. Apple wouldn't be making their own browser if they thought Microsoft had already won it. Opera would not be able to stay in business if the war was lost. Those browsers being in existence is the proof that the war isn't over.

As for the browser (the suite at least) being bloatware, yes it is. Even more so, I'd say iew is, however. Well, the mozilla suite is bloated, but it contains lots of tools, especially for the web developer. It's really powerful in it's diversity and it's capabilities. You can find everything you want the browser to have in the suite, when you happen to need it.

As for the interface, yes, it's not as good as if could be. But it's better than iem, iew, saf and opera for the most part. In this, the suite is actually somewhat better than the birds, at least for cross platform compatibility and consistency. The thing is, to get the most out of the interface, you must change a few things from the default, whereas the said browsers are all better configured "from the box", or whatever equivalent you say for downloads. That their own developers ditch it in their blogs is not different from the way the other browsers are. They don't diss' the browser as much as point out weak points. As I mentioned, they know there are faults in their product, and what they are doing is that they are trying to point the things out to the other developers and the testing population so that they can maybe see a change in it. That's a kind of feedback that is common in opensource development but practically nonexistant in corporate environments. It's feedback that people from the outside can take part in. And it's foreign to many people used to the Microsoft way, which is why many react on it in a way that was not intended.

The interface being made up by xml is correct, and it IS slower than using some of the system built-in structures. But it's cross platform and it's far from so slow that it really matters. He's wrong about xml being not designed for thousands of lines even though he's right about xml being slow, but that slowness lies in the file format and not in the actual internal representation, and it's the internal representation that determines the speed. Rather, it's the XUL-XBL-JavaScript combinations and the multiple usage hooks that slow the UI down. (The UI has become very much faster since 1.0, and I'd say you can't feel the XML/JS slowness any more except for a few very special cases.)

As for iew being more stable, I'd say that is bull****. I can crash his iew anytime, using bugs reported for ie5w that has not yet been resolved. True, I can crash moz too, but that's because I have access, like everyone else, to the bugzilla database. The stable releases of moz (those without any letters after the version number) are no less stable than iew from my experience. And they don't take the os with them when they go down, like iew can do on the win9x operative systems. And, my browser doesn't allow viri and trojans to get inside without even notifying me. If I open a file that's infected, it's my fault, but in iew, it may get opened without my knowing it. (Using security holes provided by various integration features of iew, or the google bar security problem if people haven't updated.)

As for iew being the best product Microsoft ever made, that's a highly subjective thing that I won't say anything about. It might be, it might not be, depending on what products you use.

About him qualifying to pass judgement: <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html> (That's not saying I could come up with a better arguments for it myself...)

In general, I think he's got it wrong. All the browsers are produced more or less by nerds. The difference is that moz being open, it shows. Some computer users revere nerds, some have their prejudices about them. That shows in his last comment, which also seems to indicate that you use moz because "using the alternative" is cool. Most of us use it because we prefer it for one of many reasons. (I could also use <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html> and point out that the way he generalises in the last paragraph kinda takes away his credibility when it comes to the first paragraph.)

09-27-2003, 04:25 PM
The "Macromedia Adobe" part is actually quite funny, and I read it as "I need to use Dreamweaver to create webpages because I don't get HTML". Indeed it qualifies him to exactly nothing, and is a logical error in his argument. Just dismiss his opinion.

09-27-2003, 04:31 PM
Well, now how do you know he doesn't speak about flash and acrobat (well, bloody likely...)? And is everyone using Dreamweaver a less competent web designer if thaqt was the program he was referring to?

You know that impressions of competence levels shouldn't be the whole ground for dismissing a person's argument, since you might be wrong in your impression.

That said, I would ignore him as a nobody without much real knowledge or insight.

09-27-2003, 04:41 PM
For me, Dreamweaver's more of a time-saver than a life-saver.

I think Macromedia Adobe is meant to be Flash though? Maybe not, since Flash isn't exactly browser-dependant.

Hopefully he writes back with clarification.

09-27-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by liorean
Well, now how do you know he doesn't speak about flash and acrobat (well, bloody likely...)? And is everyone using Dreamweaver a less competent web designer if thaqt was the program he was referring to?

I don't know exactly what he meant, that's why I wrote how I read (i.e. which impression I got from) his statement. And of course not everyone using DW is incompetent. I didn't say that. But using this info to strengthen one's argument by impyling it's from a "professional" strikes me as odd.

You know that impressions of competence levels shouldn't be the whole ground for dismissing a person's argument, since you might be wrong in your impression.

ACK. It was more the whole post that made me dismiss it. The "linux kiddies" were a nice flamebait too, on which I could have expanded. ;)

09-27-2003, 08:59 PM
I could go rip the thing apart too but liorean pretty much summed it up for me. :)

Although I don't know if English is this guys first language (I kinda hope not), if it is and his ability to properly construct sentences is any indication, he is just some cocky smacktard.

I'd sure like to see some of the stuff this "professional" web designer made.

09-28-2003, 02:29 PM
Anyone who thinks mozilla sucks is off their rocker. They must like IE having to be restarted every 45 seconds...:)

09-28-2003, 03:06 PM
Honestly, I've never had any problems with IE being unstable.

Mozilla's crashed on me a few times, but it's still a much better browser.

09-28-2003, 03:15 PM
IE's stability is like the general windows stability. It depends on how many programs you have installed, what hardware you have, what drivers you use for that hardware, what programs are running, and on what plugins you have installed. A clean install almost never causes any problems, but see how stable your system is after you have installed a few hundred programs. (Of which you maybe use 20 anyway...)

09-28-2003, 03:49 PM
i wouldnt say mozilla sucks but i find it is overhyped

09-28-2003, 08:14 PM
The more hype there is, the better its chances at becoming #1.

09-28-2003, 08:42 PM
Personally, I think Mozilla is clearly underhyped. Nearly nobody outside the web design business (that I've talked to) knows about it.

09-28-2003, 08:47 PM
I say we start putting bumper stickers on our cars and big mozilla banners over our doors.

09-28-2003, 08:55 PM
thats because it doesnt have much (any?) advertising i spose. but its not the holy grail in any case, as some people seem to think

09-28-2003, 09:19 PM
How do I make Mozilla my default browser?

09-28-2003, 09:26 PM
Moz: Edit menu>Preferences>Navigator>Set Default Browser
Fb: Tools menu>Options>General>Set Default Browser

Or you can in moz set all file types you want to default to moz, in the systems tab in the preferences.

10-05-2003, 07:48 PM
I personally, like the way IE for XP looks. I don't like IE though. There is a theme for firebird that looks exactly like IE for XP. It is located here http://texturizer.net/firebird/themes/ and the name of it is "Luna Blue"

10-07-2003, 04:29 AM
liorean is right... any of the developers that fault problems with Mozilla are doing a GREAT job, since they're basically saying "Hey, let's make this product rock!". Whether or not they ran into an obstacle or not, it doesn't hurt to have outside input with applications that millions of people SHOULD use. And from what I've experienced with Mozilla and Firebird builds, I definitely think they're on the right track.

After all, it's open source - basically that's a call to YOU that says "fix it if you can!".

That kind of honesty is definitely NOT seen in a corporate environment, because you don't ever want a "client" to think you're not "on top of the game".

But after all, it's what open source, and any type of programming is all about (not to mention what this forum has been about since the beginning, and why I love it!); building upon other people's ideas, improving them, etc.... and if you're lucky coming up with something totally new and useful. Actually that whole philosophy doesn't just apply to programming, it applies to life and the human race... not to mention our survival as a race, if you care to look into the future a bit.

Anyone who knocks the open source ideal is completely backwards, IMHO. This is the new world. ;)

10-07-2003, 04:33 AM
As to how you make Mozilla your default browser, you simply have to check the checkbox that says "Make Mozilla your default browser?" (or something to that effect) when you're installing it.

You can always uninstall Mozilla and reinstall it to see this magical effect, if you can't find it in the preferences! ;)

...or better yet, use liorean's guide above... by the way what kind of car do you drive, liorean? Sounds like a fast car. Oh wait I was thinking of the DeLorean, maybe... ;)

10-07-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by whammy
Oh wait I was thinking of the DeLorean, maybe... ;)
Yeah man - when this baby hits 88 miles per hour we're gonna see some serious .. er .. stuff :D

10-07-2003, 12:29 PM
The flying DeLorean - well, that would be some car to drive...

Alex Vincent
10-11-2003, 04:14 AM
Okay, as one of the people who actually hacks on Mozilla (albiet in a little extension called DOM Inspector), I must get on my soapbox here.

<ajv:soapbox xmlns:ajv="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/weirdal"><![CDATA[

To compare Mozilla to IE is unfair in a couple respects. IE is designed for some very dumb users (note I did not say developers). They place a premium on being able to find and use features that Mozilla does not match.

Mozilla is intended for developers. That being said, the Mozilla Foundation does recognize end-users do use it. We tell them again and again that it's not for them, but they use it anyway. We don't really care about that too much, but the Foundation now has a marketing department to take advantage of the opportunity.

Mozilla developers and testers are among the first to say we don't have a perfect product. We have over 200,000 bugs filed in our database! Sure, half of those on average are duplicate reports, a large percentage are invalid, and a great number of them are already fixed. But the point is we know it's not ideal for everyone. (Didn't I just say that?)

I find it very interesting that your friend talked about Mozilla sucking and not about Netscape 7.1 sucking. That would personally concern me more as a web developer. Mozilla is a cutting-edge technology -- in many respects bleeding edge, meaning we don't consider all our zip files stable enough for the general public. We release a major milestone roughly every 3 months, with two minor milestones in between (alpha and beta). Again, we're not intended for your average Joe Cool, and we really don't want to take responsibility to be there for Joe. There are over six billion Joe's and Joan's out there; we can't possibly service all of them...


10-11-2003, 05:49 AM
I personally think it's great. I'm using Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird now exclusively as browsers (except for client testing, I have to use IE and NS just to make sure stuff works in IE and Netscape, lol). IMHO it works much faster and better than anything out there. I LOVE the debugging and all of the developer help. But aren't end users what it's all about, whether they develop or not? Build it, and they will come... eventually...

By the way what's up with the random "yellow" text fields in IE now? I think one of their "windows update" patches really screwed up their browser. Not that I'm complaining about it... perhaps it will convince more people to switch to a real browser. That definitely looks horrible. :|

10-12-2003, 05:12 AM
You just install the google toolbar? :)

Go in under options and uncheck "automatically highlight fields that can remember text" or something like that.

10-13-2003, 01:40 AM
Aha! I always use the google toolbar - they must have changed something. ;) I'll try that out.

07-21-2009, 04:14 AM
I am currently using Mozilla, but sometimes it can be bad! IE8 messes up more! Flock and Cometbird are copycatters, and Google Chrome messes up when I put themes on it! And sometimes Safari is really slow. I'd even think the copycatters are better than Safari.

07-21-2009, 05:30 AM
For someone responding to a 6 year old thread, you shouldn't throw stones.

07-21-2009, 05:54 AM
For someone responding to a 6 year old thread, you shouldn't throw stones.


Though this thread is fun to re-read to realize how far we've come in 6 years. And this is back when Firefox was still called Firebird. :) The quote below by David is a good example:

Personally, I think Mozilla is clearly underhyped. Nearly nobody outside the web design business (that I've talked to) knows about it.

07-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Yeah and the comment by Alex Vincent shows how people thought about it back then:

Mozilla is intended for developers. That being said, the Mozilla Foundation does recognize end-users do use it. We tell them again and again that it's not for them, but they use it anyway.


07-21-2009, 04:26 PM
That's an appropriate quote from Vincent and similar to what I say about Windows users talking about *nix.

Alex Vincent
07-23-2009, 04:18 AM
Ouch. I sounded really cold-hearted back then.