Is this internet prodigy about to knock Microsoft off its pedestal? Bill Gates' nightmare? FIREFOX

Times Online ^ | 01.04.05

[Coleus]

Modest pioneer: Blake Ross. At 7, he was a computer game addict. At 17, he made the breakthrough that created Firefox. At 19, he is a student of computer science (DAVID ADAME)

Is this internet prodigy about to knock Microsoft off its pedestal?
By David Adams
A Miami teenager has created a free web browser that has been called Bill Gates's worst nightmare

 

A MIAMI teenager is basking in the glory of helping to create a new internet browser at 17 that is now challenging the grip of Microsoft, which once held a virtual monopoly on web surfing.

Computer analysts say that Blake Ross’s browser, Firefox, is a faster, more versatile program that also offers better protection from viruses and unwanted advertising.

Not only that, the system is offered free over the internet and its codes and technology are all accessible as an “open source” programme. Firefox has already been downloaded by an estimated 15 million users since its launch in November, making it the world’s second-most-popular browser.

Industry experts have dubbed the new software “Microsoft’s worst nightmare”, according to the technology magazine Business 2.0. It hailed Mr Ross, now 19, as a software prodigy. He is also a talented pianist and “an unbelievable creative writer”, according to his mother, Ross. “Anything he does, he does well,” she said.

As a seven-year-old Mr Ross became hooked on the popular computer game SimCity, designing and budgeting his own virtual city. By 10, he had created his own website. He later created his own computer applications and online text games.Soon he was reporting computer software flaws to manufacturers online.

At 14 he was offered an internship at Netscape in Silicon Valley. His mother drove him out to California for three summers in succession.

At Netscape, Mr Ross was introduced to the Mozilla Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that promotes “choice and innovation on the web”.

Mozilla was already trying to develop an open-source alternative browser to Microsoft’s Explorer, which many analysts felt had grown clumsy and outdated. Mr Ross and his friend David Hyatt began working on a small, user-focused browser. What began as an experimental side-project turned into Firefox.

Mr Ross is quick to point out that he was one of a large team at Mozilla who worked on the project for five years. “It’s a big volunteer effort,” he said. In fact, the pair left before the work was completed, but Mozilla credits them with making the breakthrough. After he left to go to university, Mr Ross continued to be a “significant contributor”, according to Mozilla.

The task involved throwing out all the old codes and rewriting the entire system so it would support all websites on the internet. While Firefox still has a long way to go to rival Microsoft, it seems to be catching on. Firefox has received dazzling reviews from industry analysts. Recently some 10,000 Firefox fans raised $250,000 (£131,000) to take out a two-page advertisement in The New York Times. It is not just in dividual users who are taking interest. In December, the information technology department at Pennsylvania State University sent a note to college deans recommending that the entire 100,000-strong staff, faculty and student body switch to Firefox.

Mr Ross, now a student at Stanford University studying computer science, is taking it all in his stride. As a volunteer on an open-source product, there was no financial reward.

Microsoft professes to be unfazed. Windows executive Gary Schare said: “We’re seeing the natural ebb and flow of a competitive marketplace with new products being introduced. It’s not surprising to see curious early adopters checking them out.”

Not content with making a huge dent in Microsoft’s browser share, Mozilla, the foundation behind Firefox, is also going after Microsoft’s Outlook and other e-mail packages.

Called Thunderbird 1.0, the package works on Windows, Macintosh and Linux and has been praised by the industry and press for finally offering a challenge to Microsoft’s dominance in the e-mail arena.

The software provides a number of features which other packages are struggling to offer. Key features include e-mail junk filters that analyse and sort incoming mail and greater security elements.

Page 1 || Page 2 || Page 3

[KoRn]

FF ping!

[Maigret]

I just did a Spyware Sweep and it showed only 6 spywares for a period of over a week. Before Firefox I would have had at least 2 dozen spywares in that same timeframe.

Usually I'd run Spybot every couple of days and pick up at least 4 or 5 spywares, but with Firefox I most often get a 'congratulations no spyware'.

[monkeyshine]

downloaded it recently. Love it!

I wonder why MS made it so difficult to manage "favorites"? They made it work differently than their own design for exploring the computer. Firefox bookmarks work just like that - an obvious and intuitive way that MS just didn't think about?!?

Also, what's with MS that you can't disable popups? Why did they design explorer so that others can take control of your window??!? It's so stupid!

I am a firefox man now.

I also downloaded google desktop search. It's like, DUH!!! What is wrong with MS that their own OS' search feature sucks wind, but google makes one that kicks butt?

[Last Visible Dog]

That's the impetus behind stuff like ActiveX and ASP.NET - to create channels where you can do cool stuff, but only if you use MS browsers and MS servers. So if you want to do that cool stuff, you have to buy the server from MS, because they sure aren't giving that away for free, unlike the client end.

You don't know what you are talking about. ActiveX was not created for the Internet (although years ago they attempted to use it on the Internet). ASP.NET does not create content that only works on MS browsers. All the cool stuff offered by .NET is usable by any browser that conforms to W3C standards. BTW: FireFox does not support CSS correctly. It is FireFox's problem, not Microsofts. CSS are defined by the W3C, not Microsoft.

[Last Visible Dog]

Or fewer and fewer will use MS-dependent content.

What is MS-dependent content?

That is like saying fewer and fewer will use W3C-dependent content.

[Last Visible Dog]

IE dominance is as key to MS as Office dominance is to Windows.

Wow. Two silly statements.

Office has little to nothing to do with Microsoft's dominance of the Operating System market. Microsoft dominated the Operating system market YEARS before it dominated the Office suite mark not to mention Office runs on a Mac! The lack of viable competition is the main reason for MS's OS dominance. So you actually believe dominating the FREE standards-based browser "market" is key to Microsoft. This is so silly.

[potlatch]

I use Firefox for going through email because it is very fast but use Internet Explorer when working on Webpages, graphics, javascript, etc as Firefox doesn't seem to work with all of them.

[RobRoy]

Firefox is catching on faster than an urban legend. Everyone I know who is even remotely computer savvy has switched - and is loving it, especially with all the tweeks that have been made available here at freerepublic and elsewhere.

It doesn't format hotmail very well, and I am not all that pleased with some of my printouts, but it is a small inconvenience.

[ChefKeith]

my spyware shows it has decreased spyware being picked up by more than 90%.

I'm running Mozilla 1.5 with the Cookies set for me to allow/deny, the ONLY Cookie allowed is FR, I deny All others and have had ZERO Critters since 2 months ago when I did this.

IE SUCKS!

[ChefKeith]

See# 129

I don't have FireFox but I'll bet the same thing is possible with it.

[Last Visible Dog]

You've been posting about "content" for two pages now and I finally get it. You make "content" with MS products and, by induction, assume everyone does. Maybe that's not true. In any case, I think you are missing the equally valid point of some others here so let me try to explain again.

You are not even remotely close. All the Internet has to offer is content. Content is the stuff that is in your browser! Your logic or reading skills are greatly flawed - I never assumed or implied anything nor did I suggest everybody uses MS to created content - DON'T BE SILLY!

You see, it's an historical thing. Microsoft for sure tried and succeeded in controling the software market by creating proprietary file formats.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. Microsoft did not invent proprietary file formats and nearly all desktop software uses them.

They could have adopted an open format or a preexisting format for Word, Excel etc. but they did not.

None of the other word processors or spreadsheet of the time used "open formats". Word Perfect dominated the market for a long time and they too had proprietary file formats. Lotus 1-2-3 dominated the market and they too had proprietary file format. You really don't know what you are talking about - both Word and Excel read and write other file formats.

[Last Visible Dog]

Those Office file formats are legendary for being so badly documented that even Microsoft has trouble writing filters for it, and I have yet to see a 3rd-party filter that is 100% faithful in rendering Office documents (especially Word).

Microsoft makes FREE viewers for nearly all their file formats.

[general_re]

ActiveX was not created for the Internet (although years ago they attempted to use it on the Internet).

Ummm, what? ActiveX was first released with IE 3, and of course it was intended for web development - what exactly do you think it was for? Licking stamps? Sharpening pencils? Cleaning ovens? Hell, Windows Update is an ActiveX control on the client side, and if that's not an internet application, I don't know what is.

ASP.NET does not create content that only works on MS browsers.

But it can be so used - that's the point.

BTW: FireFox does not support CSS correctly.

What? IE 6 still doesn't fully support CSS1, nevermind CSS2. Anyone who's interested in the truth about CSS support can see the obvious differences between IE and Gecko-based browsers here, among other places.

[Last Visible Dog]

XHTML and CSS are supposed to be the standard. Oddly, they aren't. I like CSS because it makes some things easier and better, but if the browsers aren't going to support it, what's the point?

Good point. The problem is the way the browsers implement the standards. Right now, Microsoft does the best job of implementing the standards.

I work for a very large company that creates Internet software for the broker and investor community. Currently for nearly 95% of our products we only support IE - this is not because MS slips us money or provides us with expensive hookers - it is because IE does the best job of rendering the standards.

[Last Visible Dog]

But it can be so used - that's the point.

What part of ASP.NET will only work on MS browsers?

[general_re]

Do you read what other people post, or just start banging away? I said that you can use ASP.NET to create and deliver content that cannot be used on alternative browsers. Do you somehow deny that this is true?

[Last Visible Dog]

Do you read what other people post, or just start banging away? I said that you can use ASP.NET to create and deliver content that cannot be used on alternative browsers. Do you somehow deny that this is true?

Reading is not your strong skill - I asked you to NAME what functionality in ASP.NET is only compatible with IE.

[general_re]

Now you're just trolling - MS has pages and pages describing how to create content exclusive to IE with ASP.NET. Picking one at random (and keep in mind that "uplevel browsers" means "IE 5.5 or IE 6"):

When authoring with the WebControls in ASP.NET Web Forms, the client browser is detected. If the client browser is Internet Explorer 5.5 or later, then a DHTML behavior behavior is included in the Web page. This content is downloaded automatically when authoring with WebControls in Web Forms, but it is also possible to use behaviors independently of the server-side authoring environment.

The WebControls deliver premium content and functionality to uplevel browsers and make extensive use of advanced client browser features. Most of the superior performance in the rendering and functionality in the uplevel browsers comes from the use of DHTML behaviors, which have their own Object Model.

Source

[Arkinsaw]

That is like saying if a DVD manufacturer dominated enough of the market they could create a format that would not play movies produced by Paramount and therefore run them out of business.

One more then. DVD manufacturers could have established a standard of one-use DVD's. Paramount would have much preferred that. But they did not have the power to enforce that, since they were not the DVD manufacturers with an 80% market share. They would have preferred not to have writable DVD's, they would have preferred not have ever had writable VHS. Their content WILL PLAY on all this stuff, but they do not have control over the way it is distributed to the end user or what they can do with it on their end. They can influence what the DVD manufacturers do and what the standards are but are limited.

Microsoft on the other hand has had over 70-80% control over the client-side of internet content distribution. It has had a huge capability to write the standards, influence the standards (or "extend" the standards if it doesn't go their way).

Now even if IE withered and died they would have influence. But it would be more along the lines of your Paramount example. They certainly would give up the power to "extend" the standards on the client side.

Take Microsoft music....
System requirements for the Microsoft service preview release limit use to U.S. consumers using Microsoft Internet Explorer with ActiveX, a technology used in online transactions, on Windows 98 or later operating systems.

That means no support for Mac users, no access for non-U.S. music fans and no support for other browsers, such as Mozilla and Firefox.

Thats an easy path to take when IE6 has 80% browser share. But if Firefox were at 80% then MS Music would have to be changing their little concept there. They would not be in quite as much control of what they were doing. It would certainly not let them go for ActiveX arbitrarily without considering what they were doing.

I'm sure that Microsoft could handle those situations. But they would no longer be making the decisions on the client side. Thats not cash gone, but it is power gone, power over the distribution channel which translates to cash on down the road.

Thats my take, and we shall see what IE7 does, how much Firefox grows, when IE7 gets released, etc. Until then, we just don't know.

Flame away.

[Happy2BMe]

Have you tried the final version of FireFox 1.0?

It's great for using as a tool for posting HTML on FR and has better built-in popup support than IE6. (Use the 'CTRL' and 'ALT' keys when a page won't load correctly to bypass the popup blocker.)