Firefox 3.5

Wait, I thought Firefox was an add-on hosting package for AdBlock Plus. :-)

I should also mention that Firefox has no stable schedule on updates or technology adoption, which makes corporate adoption a complete mess.

The times I've used Firefox I've noticed that it takes a while for the browser to launch, but I might give 3.5 a spin. I'm still hoping IE (either 8.x or 9) will get better in a near future release or Chrome gets some nice features and extension support. I still don't like that Mozilla is trying to cram its browser down my throat. Google is doing the same thing but I like Chrome. There's something about Firefox that I don't like :-s

tayme Actually, I was making fun of virtually EVERY review or comment about pretty much every browser that seems to contain something like "I personally use FF because of the excellent Ad Block plugin. If it were available for I'd probably switch since Firefox has been going down hill." Now if there IS anything I dislike about the Mozilla Foundation it's the deception of claiming to be community driven volunteer organization while actually being a commercial corporate entity highly subsidized by Google. (Kind of like what has also been true of other "community successes" such as Apache and MySQL which actually live of ABM corporate funding.) I'm fine with either model (corporate or volunteer) but pretending to be one while actually being the other is deceptive at best and perhaps fraudulent. Perhaps we need some sort of certification for "community" developement groups the way we do for "non-profits" to avoid the name being made meaningless by hidden corporate ties.

A few points: 1) Firefox 3.5 is DEFINITELY the fastest release they've had, although I'd switch their numbers around... at least 10 times faster than 3.0 and twice as fast as 2.5... 3.0 was a horrible release. 2) I've been deploying it on my corporate machines for 4 years now, and I've never had an issue with keeping it up-to-date. It *does* have auto-updating for security releases, and whole-version when a given version is about to be retired. 3) I'm among the biggest Microsoft supporters out there, and I actually *LIKE* IE (any version, up-to-and-including IE8), but I prefer Firefox purely for the AdBlock plugin, and I also really like the way it does RSS feeds better, especially with the Feed Sidebar plugin. 4) As for "cramming it" down our throats, I am not sure I understand what you're referring to. In fact, I think you have confused Mozilla for Opera Software............

>>they wonder why marketshare is still very low?<< They do? I perceive them to be rather happy with where they are right now. And I'd say mission accomplished (see below). Q: How many Firefox users are there? A: We estimate there are currently more than 300 million Firefox users worldwide. Q: What is Firefox’s market share? A: While we don’t track this information ourselves, there are many groups that do. Overall, we estimate Firefox market share is about 22% worldwide based on numbers from a variety of sources. We monitor these numbers and then see how they track to our growth of daily active users of Firefox. While we can’t confirm the specific market share percentages they offer however we do see correlating trends. About Mozilla * Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization with fewer than 250 employees * We are supported by a global community of thousands dedicated to helping us build a better Internet * Our mission is to keep the Internet open and free by supporting choice, innovation and opportunity online http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/mozilla-2009-06-30-faq.html http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/ataglance.html

More: >>we use a highly transparent, extremely collaborative process that brings together thousands of dedicated volunteers around the world with our small staff of employees to coordinate the creation of products like the Firefox web browser. This process is supported by the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.<< And here's everything you'd want to know about the mozilla foundation. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/about.html

I downloaded it a took it for a spin... Still not as fast as IE 8. Keep chugging away little FireFox (and Chrome and Opera)... Maybe one day you'll be the browser that Internet Explorer is... (though i doubt it ;)

Goodthings2Life, the thing about Firefox being easy to update because it is essentially automatic (I like that, so I didn't verify the 3.5 still provides for turning it off) is seen as a problem in many enterprise environments (such as where Wae works). If Mary's machine is critical to the company's function, and an unfortunately-broken Firefox update takes her machine down for a period of time because it sneaked in before IT could test, that is at best an emergency and it worst a CIO looking for a job. Hence things like AppLocker, which keep things off machines. Hence the enterprise practice of carefully testing Microsoft's updates before deploying them. And Microsoft providing blockers (such as the current XP Sp3 blocker) that IT departments can use. Sometimes the testing backfires, as with Conficker, which initially mostly succeeded with corporate machines where the needed out-of-cycle patch was being tested past the time when it was urgently needed. The typical consumer (in the developed world, anyhow) had applied that patch in plenty of time (only to pick up Conficker from flash drives brought home from work in some cases).

"is seen as a problem in many enterprise environments (such as where Wae works)." hahahahha yeah an enterprise in his own mind. However you are correct that you want to control updates. One bad update automatically applied to say 10,000 servers or say 100,000 workstations would quickly overwhelm your support staff and possibly make your "enterprise" loose money. As in hundreds of thousands of dollars a minute if you are large enough and involved with finance. All that said this blog site is focused on consumer Windows and Apple hatred for the most part. I mean Paul dishing the use of Outlook shows how much he does NOT know about corporate IT.

GoodThings2Life That they get $50,000,000 in revenue annually from Google isn't in question. That they're survival is tied to their Google contract isn't in question (think they could survive without that $200,000 per employee "contribution" that they get from Google? Think they're independent when most of their income ties in to one corporation's good will?) The only thing in question that I'd tie to whether you're a lawyer is whether they qualify in paying NO taxes on that $50,000,000 corporate income. And that IS being debated between lawyers and has been for a few years now.

Or, putting it another way... When Google provides between 85% and 92% of Mozilla Foundation's annual income for many years in a row, saying Mozilla is not a subsidiary of Google is a technicality at best. As I've said. I have NO problem with Mozilla as a division of Google. It's pretending that they are an independant group of people working for the betterment of all that's pretty insulting to anybody who is asked to buy that hokum. (Or as a taxpayer expected to subsidize them as a non-profit charity rather than treat them as an unprofitable division of a very rich corporation)

>>That you think of them as a small, charitable group of volunteers volunteering their time for the common good<< With only paid 250 employees, yes, I do. >>Think they're independent when most of their income ties in to one corporation's good will?<< Yes. It's all laid out in the links I posted.

Ocean Wow. Are YOU naieve.

"Firefox is certainly an acceptable, if mediocre browser." And it's better than Internet Explorer, which says a lot about what a POS Explorer is.

iketchum, It should be no surprise to you. If it's a Microsoft product, you know that lotsa's gonna bash it. Yet lotsa defends Safari. Even after it was hacked two years in a row at PWN2OWN at CanSec West. I really do feel bad for Microsoft. As much as they've come up to fix and improve things, you've got people to bash Microsoft just because. No rhyme or reason is given. I'll give Lindy credit. There are performance reasons to consider Chrome and Safari. However, the relationship with Mozilla and Google needs to be examined further. There could be legal issues here that could end up harming competition in the future. I for one see all the browser work as a good thing. However, I've still not seen a truely compelling issue to switch from IE 8. The few seconds of speed isn't really compelling enough. Plus users are still reporting of other issues with Firefox, that still makes it not compelling enough.

lketchum The other point of Google developing for WebKit is that they now have significant control of the direction of two of the three major browser engines.

SandmanX Actually, I provide reasons for my choices. Odd how the "others on this board" don't bother to provide facts but expect their opinions to be accepted with no factual justification whatsoever. Now, if you'll discuss facts I'll happily do so. I love a reasoned discussion and factual, reasonable discussions are a rare thing here as they are anywhere that people confuse their personal preferences and beliefs for factual data or think that the plural of anecdote is data. If you only want to say "I know lots of people who think you're wrong so you must be" then I'll skip that ludicrous discussion. It is, after all, the same one used to justify the most inane anti-science political discussions as well. Perhaps you'd prefer if get people to vote pi equal to 3 so it would make math easier as well?

@mikegalos You have made some interesting points regarding the amount of money Mozilla gets from Google. As for 'donate to us' sheeesh!!!! Internet Explorer has improved markedely since the release of IE8. I use a combination of Firefox3.5\IE8\Chrome. I certainly don't believe is disparaging anybody's choice of browser, each to their own and there is plenty of good competition out there.

@iketchum: It seems like Google is the new Microsoft. In an effort to end the MS dominance, companies seem to have placed their bets on Google sticking to its "don't be evil" motto. Even 60+ years after it was published, "The Animal Farm" is still as relevant as ever.

Awesome. Just upgraded to 3.5 and, so far, it's looking good. To everyone bitching about Google: the reason why they are ahead in is because they have been doing awesome searching since day one, under the same name.Everyone knows them. They're a verb in the dictionary now (and they didn't set out to become that ... like MS has been doing with Bing and "squirting" with the Zune). Remember MSN search ... oh wait; Live.com ... oh wait; Bing (which live.com now redirects to). Besides, who else is going to give Firefox money? Microsoft? (considering FF is Internet Explorers only real competitor) Or is MS going to allow Google to be the default search in IE? (considering Steve Ballmer throws chairs at people when he hears the word "Google" spoken in his vicinity ). Ugh whatever.

@shark47, You are right about the applicability of the messages in "The Animal Farm" generally, but the case of Google separates them from Microsoft in many contexts. Google, as originally designed, provided for the best answer, which was not necessarily "the most popular" answer and therefore, the least commercially viable. Google, as it is today, does not necessarily provide "the best answer" or "the right answer' - being a commercial modification of the original design and by intent, shaped by its elevation of "the most popular" answers. This is what has Google in a fit over Bing. Bing accepts that it isn't likely to ever be the most popular source of the most popular answers - it instead focuses on the most relevant and helpful of answers opposite the information people seek to use practically - e.g., that which provides for better decisions. Ironically, by centering its focus on relevance to actual decisions, Bing is surfacing not only the best answers, but those that present the greatest value to people. To un-do what they have created, Google will have to hit their own earnings and even the way they make deals with buyers - their core earnings and model. They're in a hole and have to keep digging (for now), or lose it all as fast as they gained it. The second WS analysts realize this "change" you'll see Google's stock drop like a fraCing rock. And it will happen - which explains Ballmer's reaction and response opposite their "single" business. Wisely, he’s not tipping his hand. Worse… and candidly, FF/Moz won't dare use securable objects and the UIPI - where by the way.. UAC simply makes it easy for a user to manage "restricted" to standard user space and escalations out of it.... to do so would be to admit that IE 7/8 are more secure - and Windows itself is more secure. They. can't. admit. that. ever! Google can't afford to NOT use PM and the UIPI opposite default standard users (UAC). The irony is profound. One can’t and their parent must. I am certain more than a few softies smile themselves to sleep at night reflecting on that one. and Paul suggests it’s time for Microsoft to "give it up" and use Webkit? This is what happens when bloggers only talk to other bloggers and they believe their own "stuff" in a grand glad-handing match where they line up with those believing enough of their "stuff" to get along and score enough hits to pay the bills. It’s good theater, but not for the reasons many think. In the meantime... Microsoft, ever the great race car driver, finds their own line (largely) and presses onward using really big themes to shape strategic direction - e.g., "A PC on every desk and in every home" and now: "What's ours is yours!" (our cloud, your cloud, their cloud... all clouds at once... and the browser will be dead in five years time... as irrelevant as the local only profile.... "Your computer, my computer, their computer... they are all 'our' computers." Google has no such vision and never did and breaking a great design by subordinating the best answer to the most popular answer was a decision they and their customers will regret (another lesson from the farm... 'regret' is the worst of human emotions). Now… let that be a gentle warning… how many very young and expectedly naïve tech enthusiasts will avoid the regret their own actions may one day visit upon them?

I have the same issue as techfan. I can launch IE8 and FF3 at the same time. FF will still be loading and unresponsive, I can have 3 or 4 tabs loaded in IE before FF is ready to go. Once it loads its pretty fast, but that take forever, and detracts from its being the best browser out there.

People talk about Apple fanboys, but @mikegalos is worse than all of them.

Sandman is EXACTLY right in his post. Less than 1% of 1% dont even know how FF/Mozilla gets its funding or care. He is EXACTLY right about Mike and if its anything but a Microsoft product he will find fault in it. Mike if you dont like FF and dont use it dont post. Google is doing nothing Microsoft has not done. Just get one of the true MS haters on this board to post some emails they have posted before from MS showing how they took a wrench to the knee's of competitors in very nasty ways over the years to take them out. You and others that claim foul against Mozilla/Google had no problem when IE was at 95%. Only now that its at 68% or less and almost every other browser blows the doors off of IE do you start to cry foul.