[pchelpers] Re: K-Meleon Browser
- From: "Ekhart GEORGI (last name last)" <Ekhart.GEORGI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:16:52 +0200
Hi Bob
rweyer wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. There are really only two browsers.
> Mozilla & IE. The others listed are just variations of these two. That is
> unless you go to a mack or run Linux oe Unix on a PC.
Do you mean in my message or in general? As to my message, you're
technically right. Mozilla Firebird is based on the browser part of the
Mozilla suite, but it's more than just a variation as far as i've
understood; it's apparently being rewritten to a large extent.
K-Meleon and Netscape also share and overlap with the Mozilla projects,
and this basis of open source working is why the development in the
browser filed has become so fast. See also
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/6675.htm
Opera is a completely different program and a good competitor of
Firebird and Mozilla although it's not open source, which means quite a
few drawbacks (less openness about bugs, slower to respond to user
wishes and problems, quite expensive or with annoying ads in free
version, etc.).
Other completely independent programs are Safari and
Basically, competition is essential to efficiency, security, democracy,
and, of course, freedom. So that alone is a very good reason to use
anything except IE. But in fact, even purely in terms of the alternative
programs' features and characteristics (incl. security, stability,
system resource use, etc.) they are almost all better than IE; even the
IE add-ons or shells have more essential features and often more
security or at least more security awareness and security possibilities
-- no responsible programmers would ever voluntarily sink to MS levels
if they had a choice or hadn't been corrupted by huge and illegal
(monopoly) profits.
I really pity all the talented, honest, and ambitious programmers that
continually get swallowed up and frustrated and/or corrupted by MS.
Everything is upside down at MS because quick profits take precedence
over long-term client satisfaction and company viability, e.g. new
features and programs are released when the marketing department decides
to do so, not the programmers; user interface programming takes absolute
preference over stability, functionality, and security, i.e. the
programs are written without any attempt at avoiding bloat (excess and
often incompatible programming lines) or wasting system resources (slick
program looks always take first choice over getting rid of waste, bugs,
and security holes), etc...!
Basically, MS constantly adds new gimmicks instead of making the
programs work better or even well. 90 % of all buyers can be fooled into
buying a flashy, slick, badly functioning product instead of a better
functioning less slick one (which is why it's great that Mozilla, Opera,
Netscape, Mac and some other OS, and some other open source programs
have succeeded in making their products sexy *too*. An then MS spends
millions in finding Orwellian newspeak terms to cover up deficiencies
and distort the truth (like calling security repairs "updates" --
imagine the uproar if GM or an airline tried that one! -- and like
talking about "lead time" to turn attention away from the MS
habit/strategy of abandoning/changing established and well-functioning
terms, expressions, routines, protocols, GUI structures, programs, etc.!
I mean they even make faithful buyers of new Windows versions go crazy
by continually sticking the exact same things in different menus etc.!!
> It seems all of the variations have problems.
...all the variations of IE, yes. Neither Firebird, Mozilla, nor Opera
has any real problems even though Firebird still has a few more minor
bugs, which, being a technology preview, is not surprising -- rather,
it's quite amazing that it has less bugs than most MS programs do even
after being on the market for years, often even (and especially) when in
a monopoly position. For this, see this article in the Wall Street
Journal, which also gives info on other browser alternatives although
it's really too bad it doesn't explain which are completely different
programs, which are independent developments, and which are add-ons or
shells:
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040108.html
Ekhart
>
> Bob Weyer
>
>
>>Avant seems to just be an extension of IE so it's just as insecure as IE
>>and as much a hog of system resources.
>>
>>http://ashitaka-san.home.comcast.net/yayrant/ieharmful.html
>>Internet Explorer Considered Harmful
>>
>>Internet Explorer does not empty browser cache correctly:
>>http://www.microsuck.com/content/ms-hidden-files.shtml
>>
>>I haven't tried K-Meleon yet, but it's based on Mozilla 1.5 and is
>>therefore a much better choice.
>>
>>Mozilla Firebird is the browser of the future, a further development of
>>Mozilla, PCWorld's Best of 2003 browser
>>(www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,110653,pg,11,00.asp) with
>>industry-leading standards compliance.
>>
>>Firebird and Thunderbird are already the best browser and e-mail
>>programs even though they're officially still in the predevelopment stage.
Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at //www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
Other related posts:
