Weekend Discussion

Friday March 3rd, 2000

This weekend's discussion: What keeps you interested in Mozilla, and what expectations do you have?

Just click the responses link below to enter the forum. Let us know what you think!

#31 Re: Interesting...

by Tanyel <>

Saturday March 4th, 2000 9:47 AM

You are replying to this message

It seems nearly impossible to answer these questions without defending Internet Explorer. Well, I guess I will try the interlaced reply thing.

"I can't switch to IE, because I find practically everything about it insulting -- from its interface to its error messages. I have to have it on my machine (I run Win98), but I refuse to run it (except when testing site designs)."

I find that quite understandable, dear.

"I hate that they lump together plugins and activex controls under the same security designation (Run ActiveX controls and Plugins) -- resulting in a dialog box every time a page with a plugin comes up (because I refuse to give ActiveX controls free reign over my machine)."

I guess this could be a problem. Have you tried clicking "no" when it asks if you want to install the ActiveX control?

"what the hell is up with that little e-over-a-page icon that's in the URL bar (where it performs one action)"

Well the "one action" is a good one, I think. It provides something for people to click on when they "drag and drop" bookmarks.

"and in the IE equivalent of the personal toolbar (where it does nothing, but is there for looks)"

The little icons, in the "Links" bar, tell what type of file is being linked to. It is a little E over a page when the link is a Webpage, but if the bookmark links to a Jpeg file, the little picture will be a JPG icon. On my computer, the MozillaZine bookmark has a little red monster beside it, which is crushing buildings.

"and in the status bar (where it does absolutely nothing, and has no reason to be there)."

The little E on the page, in the status bar, changes when the Web browser loads a "secure document". It changes back when the Browser loads an "insecure" document. So, I think its only purpose is to indicate the type of document. It also changes to indicate a "broken" Webpage. We will see more of that if the W3C gets its way.

"And the gray toolbar icons which becomes colored _upon rollover_? Jeez..."

I think this is awful too. I would think greyscale icons would be used to indicate "disabled features" (like the faded menu items), not to indicate usable "buttons". They could have done it better.

"From months of seeing security bugs found in their mail system -- partially due to IE's tight OS integration -- I refuse to use their default mail reader (can you say Melissa?)."

I refuse to use Outlook Express because it seems to require as much memory as a Web browser, just to compose a message. I do not have to wait nearly as long when clicking on a "mailto link" in Netscape. I suspect the reason they built Internet Explorer into the mail software is so they could strengthen their argument that Internet Explorer is necessary for an operating system to exist, as if there were no operating systems before Internet Explorer.

"I don't find its supposed CSS and other standards superiority to be of sufficient benefit to warrant a switch, because as any simple testing shows, 5.5 doesn't even live up to Mozilla's standards support at this time (try it on David Baron's CSS test suite), or on one of the DOM test suites out there. And partial implementation, as I have stated in the past, is still a hindrance to standardization."

That does not bother me at this time but I still do not like Microsoft. Die, Microsoft.