WTVN Radio • Columbus, Ohio • Sunday morning from 8 until 9

August 15, 2004

Random thought:

Another skirmish in the browser wars

First there was Mosaic (well, if you want to go back further, there were other browsers before Mosaic, but they couldn't display images -- just text). Then came Netscape, followed by a small flock of other browsers. And Microsoft. The Redmond browser (Internet Explorer) now has most of the "market" (Do free products have markets?) but there's a lot of interest in other browsers that are being developed.

In 1993, Marc Andreesen developed NCSA Mosaic at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois. That's the browser that eventually became Netscape. After a near-death experience, Netscape placed its source code with Mozilla.org, an open-source operation. Mozilla, Norway's Opera, and Apple's Safari (based on Konqueror) have been getting further and further ahead of Microsoft by offering more features and better security.

Previously I've had some good things to say about Mozilla's browser, but I've stayed away from the Mozilla Organization's latest invention, Firefox, which is still in beta. This week I decided to download it; while Firefox is still a beta application, it's version 0.9.3 and that means the developers are close to calling it 1.0.0.

The first thing I noticed is that it's the first browser from Mozilla that doesn't look like Netscape. Mozilla started with source code from Netscape, so the appearance of the browser is no surprise. Current versions of Netscape (version 7) are based on the open-source code from Mozilla, so the continued similarities aren't surprising. Netscape takes the latest stable Mozilla release, adds some features (some of which I don't want) and puts the Netscape nameplate on it.

You have options

Windows users now have a lot of good browsers to choose from. Internet Explorer still has the most users and it's acceptably safe if you make sure you install security patches as they're released. IE is the browser you must use if you want to install updates automatically from windowsupdate.microsoft.com. I like the way IE displays pages, but it's no longer my default browser.

My default continues to be Mozilla (current version 1.7.2) because it displays almost every website properly and because it doesn't have some of the security problems seen with IE. As the default browser, this is the one that opens when I double-click a link in an e-mail message. Mozilla does not override other applications, though. If I click a link in Opera, the link opens in Opera. Click the small image for a larger view.

Although Mozilla can display tabbed browser windows, I still open Opera each morning because it automatically loads a dozen or so websites that I regularly use. Opera continues to improve, but it still has problems displaying some websites -- or the website detects Opera and won't allow me to enter because it's not supported. (Note to website designers who do this: The current version of Opera can probably display your site. Remove the blocks! Better yet, learn how to write standards-based HTML.)

• Even though Mozilla and Firefox have "tabbed browsing" the winner in this category continues to be Opera because it remembers any number of sites and can connect to them when you start the system.
• Opera didn't properly display one site I visit regularly after I upgraded to the current version. Opera's tech support guru suggested that I delete all cached data and that fixed the problem.
• In addition to the Windows problem with Opera, I had a Mac problem with the program: Every time the application opened, it mounted a virtual disk drive called "Opera". The problem turned out to be partially related to the Mac's operating system. When I deleted the preferences directory ("folder") the problem went away.

Firefox is an impressive browser and will probably become my default browser eventually. One oddity I've noticed with Firefox (at least when coupled with The Bat under Windows) is that when I double-click a URL in an e-mail message, Firefox opens FOUR copies of the site. Except for that, which is a serious enough annoyance that I won't yet make it the default browser, every site I've thrown at Firefox so far displays properly and I like the way the designers have arranged things. Breaking with tradition, Firefox does not include an e-mail reader. Instead, the e-mail application (Thunderbird) is available separately. It's currently at beta 0.7.3 and I haven't looked at it. Firefox is available for Unix/Linux, Windows, and Mac (OS X only) but Mozilla is developing a new browser -- Camino -- only for OS X on the Mac.

Firefox on the Mac looks a lot like Firefox on the PC.

Firefox without any problems on an office system and on a (very slow) Mac running OS X 10.3, but the procedure that imports existing favorites/bookmarks crashed on my home desktop system and, even though I uninstalled Firefox and deleted all Registry references to the application, I could never get it to try again. I did convince it, later, to import the bookmarks from Mozilla. Because I know where the files are and what they contain, this wasn't a big problem for me. For the average user, a crash at this juncture could be more than a minor inconvenience.

Unless you want the "features" (I tend to think of them as "junk") that are included with Netscape, I can see little reason to download that Application. Netscape's programmers still tend to treat your computer as if they own it and I've never liked that approach. Applications should ask before installing anything, never make changes without permission, and abide by decisions the user makes.

Mac users can choose Safari, the browser Apple is promoting. It's based on Konqueror from Germany's KDE. Konqueror never impressed me much on Linux, but the Mac version (OS X only) is off to a good start. Currently at version 1.2.3, Safari has little trouble with any website.

Internet Explorer isn't likely to be relegated to second-class status anytime soon, but it's good to see some new (and revived) competition.

Longer-running DVD burning may be at hand (someday)

If you burn DVDs, you've probably been annoyed by the fact that most burners handle only single-layer DVDs, which means that you can't record more than an hour's worth of full-resolution video. Well, that's changing.

Double-layer DVDs provide nearly twice the space for data. They're what commercial DVD manufacturers use. These DVDs actually have 2 layers on the same side. Double-layer recorders and players use magic to select one or the other. Actually, it's a function of a highly-focused laser beam, but it might as well be magic.

A single-layer DVD has room for 4.7GB of data. A double-layer DVD increases that to 8.5GB. As good as that sounds, you'd probably be wise not to make the jump just yet. This is new technology and new technology almost always has "issues".

First is the price. Dual-layer DVDs are in the $10 to $15 price range -- each. They're not particularly easy to find, either. Until production increases, the price will remain high. Compatibility is a factor. It's now at about 90%, but that's only for the latest players. If you try to play a home-made dual-layer DVD on an older set-top player, it might not work.

There's still a problem with what's called "layer break". The DVD plays to the end of the first layer, skips to the second layer and plays to the end of the DVD. The transition from one layer to the other isn't smooth and the user doesn't have the opportunity to select where the layer break occurs. Each layer must have the same amount of data, so the layer break will be exactly in the middle. This makes real-time recording a challenge.

The dual-layer burners are also slower than their single-layer siblings. And more expensive. And besides that, they have bad breath. No, scratch that last problem. They don't breathe.

All of these problems will be solved, but for now you might want to stick with single-layer burners unless you really must have the latest and "greatest" just for bragging rights.

Nerdly News

Do not open attachments you're not expecting
Do not open attachments you're not expecting
Do not open attachments you're not expecting
Do not open attachments you're not expecting
Do not open attachments you're not expecting
Do not open attachments you're not expecting

How many times do network administrators have to share this basic, simple message? If you're not expecting an attachment from someone, don't open the damn thing! This isn't a complex message, but it's one that a lot of people just don't seem to understand.

Because of that, yet another version of MyDoom is worming its way through the Internet. Hello! Is anyone listening?

MyDoom.P is like most MyDoom variants. It arrives as an e-mail attachment with a subject line that's set up to make it look like it's a reply to a message you sent. If you didn't send a message with a subject "Price" to the person who appears to be the sender of the "reply" why would you even consider opening the attachment? There may be intelligence on the planet, but it may not be widespread.

The attachment is usually a zip file that includes an HTML file and something else. Usually the "something else" is an exe file. Open the HTML file and it uses JavaScript to execute the exe file. The exe file isn't a virus, but it forces your computer to go to the virus writer's website and download the virus. "Hey, Genius, just don't open the attachment, OK?"

I say again, as I've said several times, virtually every virus and worm on the planet would be stopped dead in its tracks if idiot users didn't open every attachment that arrives on their machines without giving it a second thought!

Windows XP SP2 still "Coming Soon"

I've recommended waiting a bit when Microsoft releases the second service pack for Windows XP, but tht doesn't mean it's a good idea to ignore the update. You will have it on your computer someday. Just not the first day. Or the first several days. This is a big enough update that it will cause some problems and I'm in favor of letting somebody else find out what they are.

SP2 includes a firewall and turns it on by default, but I'll probably continue to depend on Zone Alarm for a while because Microsoft's version doesn't monitor outbound traffic. Something nasty could still arrive as an e-mail attachment and be installed by a careless user who opens every attachment that arrives. Once the bad application is installed, it could communicate with the outside world because Microsoft's firewall doesn't monitor traffic going that way.

Microsoft will allow users to disable installation of SP2 because some organizations, ranging from small companies without a support staff to large companies with thousands of computers, don't want to deal with the updates until potential problems have been found and eliminated.

It will be possible to prevent the installation XP SP2 while allowing other critical updates to be installed automatically.

But if you just can't wait ... SP2 is already available on Microsoft's website. The download is large (272MB) and it's designed mainly for system administrators who will be updating more than one machine. Still, if you download it, the updater will work on a single machine. You can get it here.

Let us know what you think about this program! Write to:
Bill Blinn --
(wtvn@blinn.com still works)
Joe Bradley --

Joe
(Photo by Sally)

Bill
(Photo by Scampi)

Privacy Guarantee:

I HATE SPAM and will not sell, rent, loan, auction, trade, or do anything else with your e-mail address. Period.

As if you didn't already get enough weather on the radio!

If you do not see a Weather Underground banner above and you use ad-blocking software, please set your application to allow images from "www.wunderground.com" to appear.

Annoying legal disclaimer
My attorney says I really need to say this: The Technology Corner website is for informational purposes only. Neither Joe nor I assume any responsibility for its accuracy, although we do our best. The information is subject to change without notice. Any actions you take based on information from the radio program or from this website are entirely at your own risk. Products and services are mentioned for informational purposes only and their various trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. Technology Corner cannot provide technical support for products or services mentioned on the air or on the website.