Coffeehouse Thread

35 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Why I hate Firefox so much...

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Ok, I know this is going to start a fight...

    I try to view different websites in different browsers. I don't know if it is me where every website I visit in Firefox looks like something by Picasso anymore with items shifted here and there.

    The reverse is also true. I visit webpages all day long in IE and once and while the site goes south...but I can deal with it. So I blogged about why I hate Firefox so much, and I've pasted certain portions here so that you can understand my point of view.

    Mozilla seems to be lemmings trying to follow Asa Dotzler right off the cliff of the Internet, I just can't stand it anymore.

    I read webpages for the content...not the code. If I really cared about what the damn code looked like then I woulda written the page myself.

    the insanity has to stop, but it wont.

    I am going to tell you..."That's nice...use IE or Netscape". Hell if I'm really nice I'll write a different stylesheet for your UA. That way it appears valid to you.

    That's the way I feel...now time for bed.

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    Firefox has become to normal, its as if there is no point in being a geek if the normal people are using the same thing as you. Thats why I use lynx.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    IRenderable wrote:
    Firefox has become to normal, its as if there is no point in being a geek if the normal people are using the same thing as you. Thats why I use lynx.


    lmao

    I know you're joking but that is exactly why a lot of sad people use Linux and BSD..... You can find most of these people in the #Linux channels on IRC.

  • User profile image
    footballism

    Cybermagellan wrote:

    Ok, I know this is going to start a fight...

    Yep, you will see it soon.

    Sheva

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    orangie wrote:
    Manip wrote:
    IRenderable wrote:Firefox has become to normal, its as if there is no point in being a geek if the normal people are using the same thing as you. Thats why I use lynx.


    lmao

    I know you're joking but that is exactly why a lot of sad people use Linux and BSD..... You can find most of these people in the #Linux channels on IRC.


    so sad,desperate people use Linux and BSD? That's why Colleges have a seperate course just for "Unix OS" and not "Windows"...

    Yes sad desprate people do use Linux and BSD. I use it because for alot of things it simply fits my needs better but alot of people just use it because it is diffrent even if it doesn't fit their needs. They actually want Windows with a diffrent name.

    EDIT: Why can't these people be really alternative and use a real  hardcore Unix like Minix. Or better yet, a real OS like Plan 9.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    I assume this is a part of your campaign to get a job at Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Ok, I know this is going to start a fight...

    I try to view different websites in different browsers. I don't know if it is me where every website I visit in Firefox looks like something by Picasso anymore with items shifted here and there.

    The reverse is also true. I visit webpages all day long in IE and once and while the site goes south...but I can deal with it. So I blogged about why I hate Firefox so much, and I've pasted certain portions here so that you can understand my point of view.

    Mozilla seems to be lemmings trying to follow Asa Dotzler right off the cliff of the Internet, I just can't stand it anymore.

    I read webpages for the content...not the code. If I really cared about what the damn code looked like then I woulda written the page myself.

    the insanity has to stop, but it wont.

    I am going to tell you..."That's nice...use IE or Netscape". Hell if I'm really nice I'll write a different stylesheet for your UA. That way it appears valid to you.

    That's the way I feel...now time for bed.



    Rest assured, I doubt not me nor any of the other "alternative" browser users here will actually argue with you.

    ...mainly because you've got an argument from ignorance Smiley

    This is why we don't let people who /read/ NewScientist /write/ the articles that appear in there.

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    Cybermagellan wrote:

    I read webpages for the content...not the code. If I really cared about what the damn code looked like then I woulda written the page myself.


    Bingo.  Content is king.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Cairo wrote:
    I assume this is a part of your campaign to get a job at Microsoft.


    LOL....no. It just got to the point where I was using Firefox (after awhile of not using it...) and remembered now why I stopped.

    W3bbo wrote:
    ...mainly because you've got an argument from ignorance


    And you say this why? I gave reasons I didn't like it anymore and wasn't too impressed and you respond with an "ignorance" factor. This is kinda the mentality that the Mozilla fanatics have.

    You don't like it, You don't know why it's better...It's because your dumb, your ignorant, you don't know what's good for you...come to the Mozilla side, come, come to the Mozilla side.

     Yet beside standards...there is no valid argument. It's like saying that the Acid2 test is the one standard test for all browsers and you can't have a valid browser unless it passes Acid2. Well that's nice. None of them do so I guess we all pack up and go home right?

    No, so (Mozilla, not you W3bbo) stop trying to force everyone to become standards compliant, Firefox users need to stop jacking their pages up based on the UA. People will become standards compliant whenever the get to it. IE7 or 8 will be just as good if not better than Firefox when it gets to it. Revamp everything now and I'd bet you have millions of unhappy web users.


  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    No, so (Mozilla, not you W3bbo) stop trying to force everyone to become standards compliant, Firefox users need to stop jacking their pages up based on the UA. People will become standards compliant whenever the get to it. IE7 or 8 will be just as good if not better than Firefox when it gets to it. Revamp everything now and I'd bet you have millions of unhappy web users.


    Okay then...

    How about if we tell everyone to make their RSS feeds malformed, their email message headers convoluted and force the software developers to re-do their parsers to work with the new convoluted code.

    This is exactly the situation with web-standards. People don't care so long as the software does what it thinks the developer wants.

    Standards and Specifications exist for a reason, there's no excuse for producing bad code.

    I have 3 words to describe developers who produce convoluted and non-validating markup:

    Lazy and incompetent.

  • User profile image
    Cider

    I think Cybermagellan does have a kind of point, but the finger of blame shouldn't be pointed at Firefox, but at the W3C.

    Back when the WWW, HTML et al were born, one of the biggest reasons why it was so good was that HTML is extremely easy to learn (and, most importantly, easy for ordinary folk to learn).  Issuing a page was just the content (as Maurits said, "content is king") and a few break statements, bolds, font size and all encased in that HTML and BODY tags.  Really simple.  And this led to the explosion of the web because ordinary people could put pages online.  The web was for everyone because anyone can create pages on the web.

    Compare and contrast today's standards.  They're a f***ing mess.  A total f***ing mess.  The standards are now there to confuse and make writing web pages extremely difficult.  Now, an ordinary person puts up a web page and they'll get snarled at by people like W3bbo, "You used a table for layout!  You're lazy and incompetent!".  So, the web is not for everyone because not everyone can create pages on the web.

    This is one of the big reasons why blogging is cool - it removes the standards from the equation:  the content is king.  That's why there have been 15 million or so blogs created on MSN Spaces alone in the last 6 months.  Simply because of the W3C and people like W3bbo, people who seem to not want the web to be there for everyone, but only for a certain techie elite.

    (PS.  take no personal attack from this, W3bbo, just a point about the level of your advocating of standards)

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    orangie wrote:
    IRenderable wrote:
    orangie wrote:
    Manip wrote:
    IRenderable wrote:Firefox has become to normal, its as if there is no point in being a geek if the normal people are using the same thing as you. Thats why I use lynx.


    lmao

    I know you're joking but that is exactly why a lot of sad people use Linux and BSD..... You can find most of these people in the #Linux channels on IRC.


    so sad,desperate people use Linux and BSD? That's why Colleges have a seperate course just for "Unix OS" and not "Windows"...

    Yes sad desprate people do use Linux and BSD. I use it because for alot of things it simply fits my needs better but alot of people just use it because it is diffrent even if it doesn't fit their needs. They actually want Windows with a diffrent name.

    EDIT: Why can't these people be really alternative and use a real  hardcore Unix like Minix. Or better yet, a real OS like Plan 9.



    ??, soo Unix is not a real OS? Unix isn't for the home, it's for the business area....You or me couldn't architecture anything that comes close to what Unix can do.

    Unix is a server, you don't need a fantastic GUI when you should just turn it on, config it and leave it alone. what you expect it to have a GUI like windows ? most servers don't even have a monitor connected to them.

    Sorry about that, that was supposed to be sarcasm, like the lynx post.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cider wrote:
    I think Cybermagellan does have a kind of point, but the finger of blame shouldn't be pointed at Firefox, but at the W3C.Back when the WWW, HTML et al were born, one of the biggest reasons why it was so good was that HTML is extremely easy to learn (and, most importantly, easy for ordinary folk to learn).  Issuing a page was just the content (as Maurits said, "content is king") and a few break statements, bolds, font size and all encased in that HTML and BODY tags.  Really simple.  And this led to the explosion of the web because ordinary people could put pages online.  The web was for everyone because anyone can create pages on the web.
    I do have to concede that in this case, you are right about this. Back in the early days, before decent WYSIWYG editors, HTML's simplicity was one of the driving factors. But now with decent WYSIWYG editors (which is what 95% of people use thesedays) the problem isn't with the specification, but with the editors. BUT...
    Cider wrote:
    Compare and contrast today's standards.  They're a f***ing mess.  A total f***ing mess.  The standards are now there to confuse and make writing web pages extremely difficult.  Now, an ordinary person puts up a web page and they'll get snarled at by people like W3bbo, "You used a table for layout!  You're lazy and incompetent!".  So, the web is not for everyone because not everyone can create pages on the web.
    I know, this is another problem. XHTML is there to mark up "document stucture" in a semantic manner, but for 90% of the websites out there, such as "Mom's vaction pics gallery" that isn't so important. We need a new specification from the W3C, I propose "PCML" ("Page Content Markup Language") that goes back to HTML3.2 in combining presentational markup along with basic structure to allow editors and hand-coders to easily create web-pages rapidly without going into the details of semantics. ...Such as a "<LTable>" element for page layout, for example. Yes, it's dumbed down and isn't semantically pure, but its what the W3C needs to produce if they want to win back the favor of those who call them Ivory Tower Elitists.
    Cider wrote:
    (PS.  take no personal attack from this, W3bbo, just a point about the level of your advocating of standards)
    True, but I usually tend to be a príck when "advocating" when its a clear-cut case of where the specifications should have been implemented to the letter, such as "public" websites.

    EDIT: Why is "príck" a swear word?

  • User profile image
    BruceMorgan

    See the noun definition number three.   

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    BruceMorgan wrote:
    See the noun definition number three.   


    "Encarta Dictionary: No results found for 'I need to watch my language'"

    Nice one, Charles Wink

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Bruce, with your position on the IE team, and Microsoft's membership in the W3C, could you put forward my proposal for "PCML" to the W3C's HTML steering comittee?

    I mentioned something similar on the W3C HTML Discussion groups a while back, but got no reply. I wonder how they'd react if it was coming from one of their main members.

    Oh, and can you take a few pot-shots at Google for being members of the W3C, but not complying with their standards? Wink

  • User profile image
    BruceMorgan

    Links get the language filter treatment.  LOL  Who'd a thunk it?

    If you have a more detailed proposal, mail it to ieblog@microsoft.com (or to me directly bruce.morgan@microsoft.com) and I'll send it over to Chris Wilson, the lead PM for our platform efforts.

  • User profile image
    Tom Servo

    I'd prefer it if there'd be full XHTML 2.0 and JPEG2000 support, instead of a cheap hack of a markup language, that'll grace us only with tons more Geocities style of pages. We've already HTML 3.2 and 4.0, it should suffice.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.