Mozilla Firefox - The Future Of Browsing

MadPenguin ^ | 5 October 2004 | MadAdmin

[ShadowAce]

Since the recent security warnings surrounding Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser were issued, more and more people around the world have been turning to a small Open Source alternative spawned from the developers of the Mozilla browser: Mozilla Firefox

. Though it is small in download size, don't let it fool you. There's nothing small about this application. It's one hell of a contender for the Internet browser throne. Can it topple the software giants flagship product? Yes, I think it can.

Sure, Internet Explorer dominates 90+ percent of the market, but I think people are starting to grow weary of the risks involved in using that program for any serious Internet tasks such as online banking. As we all know, the risk doesn't stop there, it extends to casual surfing as the unsuspecting user downloads tons of spyware, adware, and various other malware designed to either snoop into your personal online activities and habits or simply overwhelm you with advertising you really didn't want to see in the first place. This kind of activity, in my opinion, should be illegal in the first place. Nobody should be legally allowed to install software on your computer remotely without your express permission. Period. It's an invasion of privacy and akin to breaking and entering.

Not only should this kind of activity be illegal, the company who manufactures the browser should also be held accountable for the security flaws which allow such activity to even occur in the first place. If the browser were indeed as secure as it could possibly be, we wouldn't see near the amount of malicious activity we see today. If I were to take it one step further, should the end users also be held accountable for the damage they do to themselves and others? Should we take pity upon them every time their PC is infected or breached? That takes more thought doesn't it? I would say yes, it does indeed.

If (and this is a big if) end users were aware of the reasons that they endure so much heartache for using the Internet every day I could see holding them accountable for their actions, but in reality most of them don't understand why they get bombarded with ads, viruses, and PC slowdowns. They don't understand how someone could get the bank account information, etc. They really don't. This is due, in my opinion, to the fact that they are not well informed of neither the reasons for their problems nor the alternatives they have to circumvent them. If more people were made aware that there are better browsers available, and there are ways to avoid the hassles of malware, I think we'd see a trend favoring a browser other than Internet Explorer. After all, any browser can get the job done in one way or another. It's all about state of mind and overcoming the human aversion to change.

Why Firefox?
The choice is simple really. Firefox is free, small, fast, and secure. Those are the basic reasons anyway... the list goes on. Sure, there are other mainstream browsers out there such as Mozilla, AOL's Netscape, and Opera, but none of the come close to what Firefox has to offer us. The interesting part is that Firefox has gotten more attention lately than it's rock solid parent, Mozilla. It's deserved it too, but why aren't people turning to the Mozilla suite instead, since it comes with a capable email client, calendaring support, etc? I can't say for certain, but I suspect it's due to the pure energy surrounding the tiny offshoot. Developers are excited about working on it, as are theme developers, artists, and extension writers. Mozilla Firefox is capable of being customized by anyone who has the notion to do so, and that adds to the magic of it all. End users can sense the excitement surrounding it just like anything else in life. If enough excitement and electricity is generated by a product, people will flock to it. Look at the Apple iPod. There are tons of other portable music players out there, but Apple has a certain mystique about it that nobody can touch. Well, maybe that isn't the perfect example but you get the idea.

In my experience, most people are hesitant to use Firefox over Internet Explorer because they have become accustomed to using IE in a way only a heroine addict can truly appreciate. It has also been my experience that when these same people actually give Firefox a chance, they fall in love with it and become inseparable. In the same way as their former addiction to IE? Possibly, but at least this is a safe addiction. Nobody is going to lose their life savings over this one to some criminal who understands IE Zone flaws all too well.

I'm sure most of you reading this probably have Firefox running on all of your systems since our logs shows almost 60% of you are using it, and that's a good thing. I've personally been using it since it was first released under the Phoenix (and subsequently Mozilla Firebird) name. I have watched it steadily increase in stability and feature set, while maintaining it's small footprint and download size. What prompted me to sit down and actually write this column was the latest 1.0 Preview Release. I was so impressed by it that I needed to sit down and write about it in one form or another. I originally intended to write a review, but it turned out quite different... and that's fine by me. This browser, and the people who have had a hand in it's development, deserve all the attention we can throw at them... and then some.

Tabbed browsing in Firefox Popup blocker fine tuning

The bottom line is that Firefox has matured into a hugely successful browser on so many levels. From the technology that drives it to the aesthetics, right down to its mighty capabilities, this browser is a heavyweight in every sense of the word. Even though Internet Explorer dominates the current market (and we all know how quickly that can change... does anyone remember Netscape pre-Internet Explorer?), when placed side by side with Firefox, it is dwarfed in comparison. Firefox has features that IE can't even come close to touching... including:

• Tabbed browsing – Open multiple sites in one window.
• Improved inline search (overhauled in 1.0PR) – Search for words, phrases, or links without even touching the mouse.
• Security security security – No more adware, no more spyware, no more anything that you didn't install yourself. The latest version allows more finite control over this security by allowing to to give permissions to sites of your choosing to install software on demand.
• Popup blocking – You have complete control over popups with the new Firefox. Block all popups or fine tune to allow only certain sites.
• Customizable multi-site Internet search capabilities – Search Google, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, IMBD, or any one of hundreds of sites available right from your browser toolbar (image).

• Download manager (overhauled in 1.0PR) – Easily keep track of multiple downloads from one window (image).
• Dictionary search – Search an online dictionary for any word you like simply by typing dict word in the address bar.
• Live bookmarks – Allow you to pull live news from sites without ever visiting them. This is one of my favorite features. All the news you could want right from your bookmarks menu.
• Themes – Make Firefox look like the browser of your dreams by choosing one of the many free themes in the online repository.

• Extensions – Extensions = functionality. You can install as many or as little of these as you like. Each one adds a certain feature/function to the browser, so your browser can be completely unique.
• The list goes on.......

Granted, it has it's bugs and little quirks, but I challenge you to find a piece of software that doesn't. My biggest complaint thus far with Firefox is that support for NTLM proxy authentication needs to be streamlined considerably before it can be considered for the enterprise (and this is where it needs to start getting a foothold if it is to gain some serious ground). Authentication actually does what it's advertised to do: authenticate to Windows-based domains/proxy servers. The problem with it is that it prompts the user to authenticated every time the browser is launched. This is entirely annoying for most users, especially when they see IE doesn't suffer from the same problem. If I can make one suggestion to the Firefox developers regarding this feature. Make it a little less intrusive. In my opinion it can be worked one of two ways: The first way would be to prompt only once during initial configuration and then cache the info. It already caches the information so why not make it invisible after the initial prompt. If you change your password, you can clear it from the password utility in Firefox's options. The second way (and this would be available only for the Win32 version) would be to have the browser pull the information similar to the way IE does, right from the running system. It would essentially pass the credentials from the logged on user right through the browser to the proxy server. That is my $0.02 for the day, and it's actually my only real big problem with the browser. Other than that, I am staring at the closest thing to a perfect browser I have every worked with. Period.

The Firefox web browser – click for full size view

I enjoy using Internet Explorer. Why should I switch?
The following section is for those of you who may be reading about this out of curiosity. Perhaps you heard about Firefox from a friend or collegue? Perhaps you have a relative who swears by it? Either way, you should benefit from reading this. Luckily, the answer to your question is an easy one... depending on whether you want to listen to what I am telling you or not. The browser most of you are using (and I am indeed referring to Internet Explorer) is outdated and so full of security holes that it is a risk to use for anything more than very very casual Internet browsing. If you are using it to do your online banking or other critical business, you are putting yourself at risk. It's really that simple. Internet Explorer is seriously dangerous to use, and if you don't believe me, find out for yourself if you haven't already. Internet Explorer is built on old technology in the same way that Windows essentially is, and it is full of security holes that Microsoft ignores in favor of adding more multimedia features, bells, and whistles to make it appear more attractive. This is just smoke and mirrors. Firefox is an actively maintained browser, developed by talented programmers from around the word, true professionals in every sense of the word. When a security flaw is discovered it is often fixed in hours... hours... this is in comparison to the weeks, months, and often years it takes Microsoft to patch their problems. This is no joke. What you enjoy using will (notice I say 'will' instead of 'could' here) harm you in one way or another.

Firefox also doesn't get infected by anything close to what everyone refers to as 'spyware'. Perform an experiment for me if you don't mind. Download a tool such as Spy Sweeper and clean your system with it. Run IE as you normally would for one week and sweep your system again. Count the traces of spyware it finds and remove them. Then run Firefox as you normally would for one week (don't use IE at all during this week) and run Spy Sweeper again. What you will see is ZERO traces of spyware. Try it and prove me wrong. You'll notice a strange lack of popups windows while using Firefox too... this is a great built-in feature. No need to download a third party plugin to do it for you. Those are only glorified spyware applications anyway if you weren't aware.

In addition to being safer and not being subject to endless hoards of spyware and annoying popups, you have an endless supply of extensions, or plugins, available to you to enhance your browser however you like. You can add additional search engines to the toolbar, mouse gestures, Image and multimedia controls, and tons of other browser goodies... all for the cost of the time it takes to download them. I'll note here than most of the features are tiny and take very little time to download. Try it and see what you've been missing. I'd be willing to bet that you won't be able to believe how good this browser really is. Why trust your critical information to a browser produced by a company who doesn't care about your well being and safety? Put your faith in a product designed by people just like you... good people with good intentions who want the same things you do... and are willing to give them to your for nothing. Not many good things in life are free these days, but I assure you, Mozilla Firefox is a rare exception.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This is particularly true since web sites fine tune their pages for IE rendering.

They don't fine tune their websites for IE rendering. They could all render the same page if they all stuck to the W3C HTML, XML and CSS standard.

[BigSkyFreeper]

IE allows tracking cookies that store information about site you visit, and which can be accessed by more than one site.

A NYT username/password cookie will not allow you to log into Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, conversely though, a Yahoo! Mail cookie will allow you to log into Yahoo! Finance or Yahoo! Groups because you only need one account for the whole site. MSN works the same way when you have an online photo album or Hotmail account. Cookies don't store personal information like name, city, state, country, phone number. It just stores that sites name and things like username and password. Looking at the raw text file of a cookie, you can't discern much from it, even if you were looking for usernames or passwords.

[js1138]

Your two sentences are mutually contradictory. And major sites, including FR, do try to determine what browser you have, and supply a page tailored for it.

I know that because occasionally someone posts a big block of HTML from a news site, and it doesn't render in IE.

There are huge differences among the different browsers in how they align graphics in tables. This creates problems if you are trying to make a dynamically sized text box with rounded corners.

[js1138]

Did I mention personal information or passwords? What on earth are you talking about?

[BigSkyFreeper]

I inferred that's what you meant, since you were donning a tinfoil hat.

[kevao]

Bump

[BigSkyFreeper]

And major sites, including FR, do try to determine what browser you have, and supply a page tailored for it.Correct.I know that because occasionally someone posts a big block of HTML from a news site, and it doesn't render in IE.

That's false. IE is more forgiving than the other browsers out there, for "absolute positioning" in CSS, IE is more "absolute" than the other browsers out there.There are huge differences among the different browsers in how they align graphics in tables. This creates problems if you are trying to make a dynamically sized text box with rounded corners.

Shouldn't be a problem if you explicitly put in the table parameter the height and width of a table in "pixels" rather than "percentage". A table that would be "100%" wide would be wider on a 1024x768 screen resolution than the same table on a 800x600 resolution screen. They would be the exact height and width if they were sized in the number of pixels wide and the number of pixels in height on and screen resolution. Just like images.

[js1138]

Tracking cookies just record the sites you visit. Some folks don't consider them spyware. They are used by lots of legitimate sites. With spybot activated I am constantly getting warnings about doubleclick warnings. Apparently doubleclick can be used as spyware.

I don't visit disreputable sites, but I still get these warnings. Obviously, mainstream sites have a vested interest in IE.

[js1138]

If you read what I wrote you would realize that I am talking about dynamically sized tables used for text. The columns expand or contract with window sizing.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I've never gotten doublick site cookies since 1998, when it was found they were tracking people's movements on the net. My firewall blocks connections to and from doubleclick, and I've set up IE to block cookies that are titled "username@doubleclick.net".

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you read what I wrote you would realize that I am talking about dynamically sized tables used for text. The columns expand or contract with window sizing.

That's what I was talking about as well. I just gave you the reason why. It boils down to "percentage" width versus "pixel" width. Any table using width in percentage will dynamically resize when you resize the browser window, they won't if you use pixeled sizing and are therefore static.

[js1138]

That's a good idea, but beyond the abilities of most users. Spybot blocks it. I am surprised that tracking cookies are used by major commercial sites.

[js1138]

So there are differences in browser rendering, and they aren't limited to MS vs everyone else.

[js1138]

There are also differences between browsers in the interpretation of font size. If you specify absolute sizes then handicapped people can't use the browser to enlarge the fonts. If you use dynamic sizes, different browsers display them differently.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you specify absolute sizes then handicapped people can't use the browser to enlarge the fonts. If you use dynamic sizes, different browsers display them differently.

I never use absolute sizing of fonts in webpages I create for that speific reason.

[js1138]

So if you want your page rendered the same way on all browsers, you have to have several style sheets, and determine which one to send.

[Cricket24]

I love Firefox. I just started using it a couple of weeks ago. I am on a dial up and my IE was sooo slow. Fire fox is much faster. I have emailed everyone I know about it.

[Cricket24]

I am running Windows 98 (not SE) and it is working great for me.

[BigSkyFreeper]

So if you want your page rendered the same way on all browsers, you have to have several style sheets, and determine which one to send.

Who's fault is that? Certainly not Microsoft's. I simply stated already once on this thread that MS has followed the W3C standards, a standard that up until a few years ago, other browsers like Netscape, Mozilla and Opera finally got around to complying with. Microsoft was compliant from the get-go when CSS become a widely accepted way of formatting the look of an individual or group of pages. You seem to have problems with clear English, strawmen and conspiracy theories. Try dealing with the facts of the matter.

[BlueLancer]

"Most people have a life, and they are loathe to invest the hours necessary to find the conflicts, eliminate them, tweak things, modify for desireable effect etc. The average person avoids it because it is the difficult alternative."

Exactly ... Not that long ago, I remember tweaking DOS settings to try to make one program work, then going in and changing the settings to make another one work, and then tinkering with it further to use a third one. I want something that I can pretty much use straight out of the box, without having to adjust, readjust, and mis-adjust.

Or, as Oddball put it ...
"Oh, man, I just ride in 'em. I don't know what makes 'em work."