Mozilla and the Open Source Browser Bonanza

Even if you don't remember the birth of Mozilla 15 years ago, you are certainly benefitting from its consequences. For, back then, the company that invented the Web as a mass medium, Netscape, was in its death throes, and looked likely to take Web browser choice with it.

On Open Enterprise blog.

South Korea Still Paying The Price For Embracing Internet Explorer A Decade Ago

The problems of monopolies arising through network effects, and the negative effects of the lock-in that results, are familiar enough. But it's rare to come across an entire nation suffering the consequences of both quite so clearly as South Korea, which finds itself in this situation thanks to a really unfortunate decision made by its government some years back: 

On Techdirt.

Mozilla's Brendan Eich on the Birth of Firefox

A couple of weeks ago I posted the first part of an interview with Brendan Eich, who is Mozilla's CTO. That covered the early years of browsers at Netscape, and the origin of Mozilla. Somewhat belatedly, here's the second part of that interview, which picks up the story at the beginning of this millennium, and reveals the complex sequence of events that led to the creation of Mozilla Firefox.

On Open Enterprise blog.

2011: The Year of Firefox - or of Chrome?

Everyone knows that there are lies, damned lies and Web analytics, but the latter can at least give a feel for what's going on. And the latest figures for browser market share in Europe certainly do that.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Microsoft: Hoist by its Own Petard

I always look forward to reading Microsoft-funded research, because over the years it's evolved into a kind of game. The results - of course - are always amazingly good for Microsoft, but hidden away in there, like a secret at the heart of a complex puzzle, there's something that we're not supposed to notice that undermines the final result.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Firefox Loses Market Share Again: Is That a Problem?

Understandably, commentators are getting excited over the fact that according to one survey Internet Explorer has gained browser market share for the second month running. Not only that, but Firefox has lost market share for the third month running. Should Mozilla be worried?

On Open Enterprise blog.

A Tale of Two Ballot Screens

Remember the browser ballot screen that Microsoft agreed to add as part of its settlement with the EU over competition issues? It's happening now:

Over the next few weeks, Microsoft will begin offering a “Web browser choice screen” to Internet Explorer users in Europe, as required by the European Commission. Internal testing of the choice screen is underway now. We’ll begin a limited roll-out externally next week, and expect that a full scale roll-out will begin around March 1, a couple of weeks ahead of schedule.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Browser Ballot Screen: Time to Prepare

It looks like it's happening:

The European Commission will on 9 October 2009 formally invite comments from consumers, software companies, computer manufacturers and other interested parties on an improved proposal by Microsoft to give present and future users of the Windows PC operating system a greater choice of web browsers. The commitments have been offered by Microsoft after the Commission expressed specific concerns that Microsoft may have infringed EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by tying its web browser (Internet Explorer) to its client PC operating system Windows, and are an improved version of the proposals made by Microsoft in July 2009 (see MEMO/09/352 ). The improvements concern greater information to consumers about web browsers, the features of each browser, an improved user experience as well as a review by the Commission to ensure the proposals genuinely work to benefit consumers. Interested parties can submit comments within one month. The Commission welcomes Microsoft’s proposal as it has the potential to give European consumers real choice over how they access and use the internet. Following the market test, the Commission could decide to adopt a decision under Article 9 (1) of Regulation 1/2003, which would make the commitments legally binding on Microsoft.

It's hard to comment on this until we see what form the ballot screen will take, but I'm prepared to accept that this may be done in a fair manner. Assuming it is, what might the implications be?

Perhaps the most important one is that Firefox needs to be prepared for a massive onslaught when this goes live. I have heard the slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Microsoft is hoping to bring Firefox's servers to their collective digital knees by allowing such a ballot screen; even assuming that's not the case, it's certainly true that Mozilla must start planning for the sudden peak in interest that is likely to follow the implementation of the ballot screen idea. It would be a terrible shame if people tried to download Firefox and failed because the Mozilla servers keel over.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Microsoft cocks a snook at the EU

Whatever you think of the European Commission's investigation of Microsoft for possible anti-competitive behaviour in the browser sector, it's well worth watching the spectacle of the two slugging it out. Here's Microsoft latest move, and it's a classic...

On Open Enterprise blog.

Standing up to the Playground Bully

The EU is contemplating some further action against Microsoft:

Frustrated with past efforts to change Microsoft Corp.'s behavior, European Union regulators are pursuing a new round of sanctions against the software giant that go well beyond fines.

The regulatory push is focused on a longstanding complaint against Microsoft: that it improperly bundles its Web browser with its Windows software. Rather than forcing Microsoft to strip its Internet Explorer from Windows, people close to the case say, the EU is now ready to try the opposite measure: Forcing a bunch of browsers into Windows, thus diluting Microsoft's advantage.

The sanctions would come from an EU investigation that began last year. In a sign of how rapidly the case is progressing, these people say, the possible penalty has emerged as a key focus in discussions between the parties.

Inevitably, this suggestion has led to whining about how nasty those eurocrats are, and how unfair to pick on little old Microsoft, and what a crimp on innovation all this is.

How utterly pathetic.

What we are seeing is teacher starting to get heavy with the playground bully - one who, despite a decade of warnings, continues to abuse its monopoly position. What we are seeing is an institution that finally has both the will and means to place limits on what are acceptable business practices.

Of course, forcing Microsoft to give people a choice of browsers when they start up Windows will make little difference to the that market, but that's not the point. The point is the punishment - a further reminder that Microsoft is under scrutiny, and that further serious financial sanctions are always an option. It's absolutely the *right* thing to do, because Microsoft's behaviour for the last two decades has been absolutely the *wrong* thing to do, and it is finally being called to account.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

And RMS Spake, and it Was Good

As well as being a great coder, RMS is a fine writer (he made a number of excellent suggestions when I sent him rough drafts of the relevant chapter of Rebel Code). So it's a pity that he doesn't write much these days.

And it's also a red-letter day when he does, as with his latest missive: "The Javascript Trap". This describes a problem he has spotted: non-free Javascript.

It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original. Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one delivered in the page. The effect is comparable to tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.

...

It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original. Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one delivered in the page.

He comes up with some interesting solutions:

we need to change free browsers to support freedom for users of pages with Javascript. First of all, browsers should be able to tell the user about nontrivial non-free Javascript programs, rather than running them. Perhaps NoScript could be adapted to do this.

Browser users also need a convenient facility to specify Javascript code to use instead of the Javascript in a certain page.

RMS: where would we be without him?

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody

Do Open Source Eyeballs Really Work?

One of the most contentious areas in computing is whether open source is more or less secure than closed source systems. Open source is open for everyone – including the black hats – to poke around and find the bugs, but it's also open for anyone skilled enough to fix them. Closed source is (theoretically) harder to peek into, but (practically) impossible to fix unless you work for the company that wrote it.

Here's some nice empirical evidence that many eyeballs looking at open source code *do* make a difference...

On Open Enterprie blog.

Google Chrome to Support ActiveX

I've written before about the parlous state of online computing in South Korea, where practically everyone uses Microsoft's ActiveX technology. As this post explains:

Despite security short-comings, ActiveX had been welcomed into the community and flourished. Surprisingly, more so in banks where security is a top priority. Believe it or not, ActiveX is so widely used that the South Korean government decides to make it compulsory for all banks to have it.

That's bad enough, but the post goes on:

Other major browsers have resisted supporting ActiveX. Until now. Google Chrome has now decided to support ActiveX, but only in South Korea.

OK, so Google wants to increase its market share, but it might do that more usefully by sponsoring a few studies into the poor security that using ActiveX implies. Following sheep-like is not the solution.

What's in a Number?

There's been a certain excitement in the blogosphere around the release of some figures about Firefox's market share in Europe. These show Firefox holding over 30%, while Internet Explorer is below 60%; alongside these, Safari notches up 2.5% and Google's Chrome 1.1%....

On Open Enterprise blog.

Towards the Holy Grail of Virtual Worlds

On Open Enterprise blog.

Where's Walt? On Firefox 3

Walt Mossberg wields much power in the US, so the following is significant:

My verdict is that Firefox 3.0 is the best Web browser out there right now, and that it tops the current versions of both IE and Safari in features, speed and security. It is easy to install and easy to use, even for a mainstream, non-technical user.

EU vs. MS 2.0?

The European Commission opened a new antitrust probe against Microsoft on Monday into whether it unfairly tied its Web browser to the Windows operating system and made it harder for rival software to work with Windows.

But the good news is:

"This initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has proof of an infringement. It only signifies that the Commission will further investigate the case as a matter of priority," the Commission said.

Oh, that's alright, then.

Microsoft, Browsers and Bundling

It's déjà vu all over again:

Opera Software has filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft in the European Union, accusing it of stifling competition by tying its Internet Explorer web browser to Windows.

The complaint, which was filed by the Norwegian firm with the European Commission yesterday, says Microsoft is abusing its dominant position in the desktop PC market by offering only Internet Explorer as a standard part of Windows, and hindering interoperability by not following accepted standards with IE.

Opera is asking the Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, to force Microsoft to unbundle IE from Windows, or include other browsers as a standard part of its operating system. It also wants it to require Microsoft to adhere to industry standards with its Web browser.

It didn't do any good last time, but this is the EU rather than the US, so it will be interesting compare and contrast the outcomes. Still, I have to say that the real solution is not to file this kind of anti-trust suit, but to deploy Firefox. Obviously, that's not an option for Opera, which may explain why they've taken this route.

OpenProj

For many years, the only decent free end-user app was GIMP, and the history of open source on the desktop has been one of gradually filling major holes - office suite, browser, email etc. - to bring it up to the level of proprietary offerings.

Happily, things have moved on, and it's now possible to use free software for practically any desktop activity. One major lack has been project planning, traditionally the (expensive) realm of Microsoft Project. No longer it seems. With the launch of OpenProj, the open source world now has a free alternative, for a variety of platforms.

It's still too early to say how capable the program is, but it's certainly a welcome addition. The only other concern is the licence, which seems not to have been chosen yet, although an OSI-approved variant is promised.

Update: Apparently, if I'd taken the trouble to install it, I would have seen that the licence is the Common Public Attribution Licence. (Thanks to Randy Metcalfe.)

Happy Birthday Browser

Or so it seems:

1991: Tim Berners-Lee, the acknowledged inventor of the World Wide Web, introduces WorldWideWeb, the first practical web browser.