OT: Alternatives to Firefox and Google

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 06:41:03PM -0500, Henry de Valence wrote
> On November 5, 2007 05:45:57 pm Walter Dnes wrote:
> >   My major whine is that Firefox is including too damn much stuff
> > in the core, like spell-checking and the upcoming 3.0 with its IAP
> > (Internet Application Platform).
> 
> Perhaps if these features were developed as extensions, the default
> install could have them by default, but the "advanced options"
> would let you choose not to install them.

  They started out as extensions.  Mozilla lacks an SOB at the top to
say "NO" to "more features".  Linus Torvalds has remarked that a lot of
his work consists of telling people... "No, we are *NOT* including your
pet "feature" in the kernel".

  Mozilla reminds me of General Motors.  In the early 1960's GM
introduced the smaller Chevelle to compete against the Volkswagen
Beetle, which was getting lots of buyers turned off by the full-size
Impala.  However, by 1973, the 1973 Chevelle was just as long as, and
500 pounds heavier than, the 1963 Impala.  You don't even want to ask
about the 1973 Impala.  Mozilla is a lot like that.

  Java was the first attempt to produce a pseudo-operating system on top
of WIndows.  How many Java applets do use use today?

  Netscape 4.x was OK in its time.  But AOL took over, and repeated
Sun's Java mistake.  Rather than update Netscape to handle evolving HTML,
they spent untold millions working on turning Netscape into a pseudo-
operating system on top of Windows.  We all know what a roaring success
that was... NOT.  As Netscape fell behind evolving HTML standards IE won
the browser wars, mainly because AOL basically sabotage Netscape.

  Mozilla came out as an all-in-one browser/newsreader/email-client that
was big and bloated.  I'm sure we all remember the jokes about...
"about:kitchen sink".  Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was introduced as the
lightweight, browser-only, version of Mozilla to counter this.  After a
few years, the bloat has returned.

  Open source seems to have this fascination with creating a pseudo-
operating system on top of Windows.  Java works on cellphones because
the cellphone makers *WANT* apps to make their phones desirable, and
therefore they co-operate.  A pseudo-operating system on Windows faces
the same sabotage from MS as IBM ran into when it tried to make OS/2
binary compatable with Windows 3.1, and MS brought out 3.11.

  Once again, the buzz is about creating a pseudo-operating system on
top of Windows, to run internet apps.  It is doomed.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
Q. Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Microsoft security?
A. I think it would be a good idea.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists