Other milestones are close to be reached aswell, as Mozilla's open-source mail client ThunderBird is nearing on its 10 millionth download, and Minimo, the browser for small devices had its first prerelease version with tabs, RSS support and a bookmark manager. The Mozilla staff itself has quadrupled during the past six months, to 40 employees.
Mozilla on Tuesday marked the 75 millionth download of Firefox. It's unsure, though, how many users are actually using Firefox as their web browser; The counter counts multiple downloads of different versions and doesn't count Mozilla's automatic updates or copies from single downloads distributed through organizations by technology managers.
The milestone provides at least a psychological boost to the foundation's volunteers and staffers, who have watched growth rates slip this year amid a string of security problems.
"We're beefing up the management on the project," said Chris Hofmann, whose title at Mozilla is in flux since the foundation hired another director of engineering. "The project is still very healthy. We're seeing continued corporate interest and have a lot of large organizations that want to do deployments."
Download: Get Firefox
News source: CNET News
Mozilla on Tuesday marked the 75 millionth download of Firefox. It's unsure, though, how many users are actually using Firefox as their web browser; The counter counts multiple downloads of different versions and doesn't count Mozilla's automatic updates or copies from single downloads distributed through organizations by technology managers.
The milestone provides at least a psychological boost to the foundation's volunteers and staffers, who have watched growth rates slip this year amid a string of security problems.
"We're beefing up the management on the project," said Chris Hofmann, whose title at Mozilla is in flux since the foundation hired another director of engineering. "The project is still very healthy. We're seeing continued corporate interest and have a lot of large organizations that want to do deployments."
Download: Get Firefox News source: CNET News
The updated Mac mini comes with 512MB of RAM and built in wireless. Here are the new options:
- 1.25GHz G4, 512MB RAM, 40GB HD, Combo Drive, $499
- 1.42GHz G4, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, Combo Drive, Airport Extreme and Bluetooth, $599
- 1.42GHz G4, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, Super Drive, Airport Extreme and Bluetooth, $699
so... what?
let the poor guys revel in their 5 minutes of glory ffs. :-P
downloads != users
that is a lot of downloads though..
An image showing market share...
i myslef have downloaded each version at least 3 times for various reasons. times about 9 versions: 27 dls for me
25 million * 20 (per say) is still too much
The most unfavorable statistics to Firefox say 10% of world uers use Firefox, there are between 900 million 1 billion internet users, that makes 100 Million Firefox users.
First, these 75 million direct downloads do not take into account automatic updates (you can easily triplicate this number with automatic updates).
Second, linux distros (about 3% of computer users) all have Firefox included and deliver it through their own repositories and update mechanisms (synaptics, uprmi...), so these 75 million numbers are mostly windows+mac downloads only.
Third, mozilla.org isn't the only downloads site, many sites (download.com, clubic.com, softtonic.com...) host the binaries themselves and are usually not counted into the grand total, I think you could add a few million downloads there.
Fourth, downloading is the main way to get firefox, but by far not the only one. Firefox is included every month in most if not all CD magazines sold in my country (France), it is most probably the case worldwide. It is also included in many ISP installation CDs, available in most books about opensource (and of course books about Firefo
Fifth, you downloaded it 27 times, how about people downloading it once and installing it on dozens or hundreds of machines (computer rooms in schools, small companies)?
Sixth : Corporate and government deployments. Do you think that when an administration (mainly in Europe) deploys Firefox and Firefox on thousands or tens of thousands PC's they downloaded it once per each user ? When a company downloads it once to put it on their intranet repository and have thousands of users use it (like IBM did recently), they easily outweight your 27 downloads
And I don't even talk about people like me who have firefox on their USB key to install it on friends machines !
second - windows bundles ie. again, doesn't contribute to usage figures
third - windowsupdate isn't the only download location
fourth - downloading isn't the only way to get hold of internet explorer versions. blah blah
fifth - you downloaded ie 27 times, what about the people downloading it once and installing it multiple times?
sixth - corporate and government deployments and updates of ie.
and i don't even talk about people like me who have ie on their USB key to install on friends machines..
or.. a long convoluted post which could be summed up thusly. Download counts don't count for ****. No matter what browser you're using. Usage stats collated from multiple websites do. Or in otherwords, mozilla's publicity machine is sent into overdrive.
NEXT!
its real easy to make up facts like that...get some proof first
did you know that 42.8% of statistics are made up on the spot?
It is actually "64 percent of all the world’s statistics are made up right there on the spot", according to Todd Snider.
As for the points made in 3.2, I can vouch from the Linux end (#2). Installed and using, but never downloaded from Mozilla. Many of his other points, like #3, are obvious truths. You can download from other sites. Also people *do* share.
You can't imply that his points are false just because he didn't also provide proof.
I work on the internet and can verify those statistics .. NEXT
Interestingly, 3 years ago the same IE lovers used the same browser stats to affirm that gecko browser would never have any significant market share, that browsers were irrelevant and the future was MSIE... Apparently when statistics said that gecko had less than 1% market share 3 years ago (a data we mozilla users didn't deny at that time), it was the proof that supporting mozilla and open web standards was pointless, but now that firefox and gecko browsers have a much bigger market share, browser stats have become lies !?!?!?
So ok, i'll let you live in your world were people download Firefox compulsively just to erase it from their hard drive as soon as they have tried it, were books about firefox and opensource never come with CDs and don't even exist, where there are no corporate deployments of firefox, where governments who deploy linux at large scale in Europe still use IE (sure, they use Wine just to run IE) where computer magazines never put Firefox on their CDs, where nobody installs firefox on his friends/family PCs, where ISP don't put firefox on their CDs and PC resellers never include Firefox in their preconfigured machines...
As for "facts", since statistics are lies, here are a few more data about people getting to know firefox without downloading it from mozilla.org:
Firefox on free.fr install CDs, 2nd biggest ISP in France
The government of India distributes 3.5 million free CDs with popular opensource software
IBM backs Firefox in-house
What is funny is that the same people who say that all browser stats worldwide are lies and mozilla download counters are fake always conclude that Firefox has few users. Since you deny any value to all browser stats published and Mozilla.org main download counter, how can you conclude that this number is significantly lower ?
In all logic and intelectual honesty, after denying the stats available, your conclusion should be that "Firefox usage could be significantly lower or significantly higher than the number of downloads, we don't know" and not "Firefox usage is low".
PS : And yes shao, this is another "long" post for your reading skills. BTW, do you really know what "convoluted" means or did you just choose this adjective because it sounded clever?
It's amazing how if someone says something that is contrary to Firefox's press release, they are automatically labeled as "firefox haters" and "ie lovers".
I'm with Corwin, and I ain't no lover or hater.
Since the first version, it got 75 million hit.
This 75 million is adding all hit for EACH version.
Last edited by 117327 on 27 Jul 2005 - 12:03
I am so sick of this hype. It is almost as if the media has an agenda to artificially inflate Firefox's adoption rate.
You may be tired of hearing about Firefox, but I'm sure people are sick of seeing you whine about Firefox's popularity.
Read #6
I'm not the type to follow black sheep.
Last edited by 117327 on 27 Jul 2005 - 17:28
For reference sheep has no plural. Sheep means both singular and plural
Thanks for the lesson.
Thanks for the lesson.
Sure there are security vulnerabilities, but you can say the same for IE. The most important fact to be aware of is that FF is not under the gun like IE is from people that wish to exploit browsers.
Not only that, FF users are usually not idiots.
Also, I don't think people use FF because it's cool as you say, they probably use it because they like it. It's not like I can show off to the world that I use FF from my computer.
Now, if you were thinking that the original poster meant that MICROSOFT would pre-bundle Firefox... yeah, "never" sounds about right.
firefox becomes slow after its been opened.
Firefox is indeed missing something. Unlike IE, Firefox is an "application" that is not hooked right into the OS.
Notice how typing a URL in Explorer basically just renders the webpage without delay.
Even MS itself, in its defense in one of many anti-trust suits said so themselves.
Now, its all coming back to haunt MS - guess what happens when malware takes advantage of the OS integration?
At least it seems that way.
Glad to see it is going off since i used it since 0.5, although following its development is alot less interesting now than the betas. Great app but.
I'm especially impressed with the fact they now have 40 employees, didnt realise it had grown so much.
It's unbelievable that some people still think that Firefox Is a better browser, It's NOT a good browser, It's crap.
I do have Firefox on my SuSE Linux system, but I don't use It, the stupid browser crashes everytime I use It.
Firefox - 17 in 2005
http://secunia.com/product/4227/#advisories_2005
Internet Explorer - 9 in 2005
http://secunia.com/product/11/#advisories_2005
well what versions do u you use? (FF and SUSE)
my FF runs smoothly on both, WIN and SUSE.
also there could be a problem with the setup or stuff...
-fm
Since you feel compelled to drag up stats from Secunia to show Firefox is worse than IE, let me make a counter-point.
Instead of comparing all flaws (open and fixed), let's take a look at open flaws:
Firefox: 3, overall rating "Less critical"
IE: over a dozen, overall rating "Highly critical"
any source? thx
-fm
Internet Explorer - 9 In 2005
Firefox - 17 In 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
To Neo.X.WinFreak
SuSE Pro 9.3
Firefox 1.0.6
Here Is screen Capture from a couple of weeks ago.
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4044/snapshot69ta.jpg
Everytime I try to download something, or click on a link In my favorites folder ... CRASH!
Most people here will use windows update, but how many people out in the real world do? Not many I can tell you that...
I've been travelling a lot since getting married, staying for free with people my wife found on the 'net
None of them had run windows update, or had installed the latest service packs, save for the tech savvy two, most didn't have a firewall, almost none had anti-spware, a few had anti vurus software, most weren't up to date with the definitions.
On average it took me three hours to patch, mend, lockdown and install the associated things I consider to be "normal" when it comes to safe computer use on the internet.
So for most people, suffering from banner popups, with constantly hijacked home pages, etc. Firefox is a lot more secure than IE out of the box. Now firefox against a fully patched XP SP2 running IE6 with spybot, zonealarm etc, that's a different and more marginal story.
But IE 5, 5.5 etc. on a vanilla ME or 2K, etc? Firefox on that is a godsend, even better when you have adblock and filterset G installed.
As for the secunia advisories, anyone willing to take the time to compare the two will discover that IE comes out far worse, even if the numbers look bad on the surface for firefox.
Bottom line; with IE 43% of reported vulnerabilites are unpatched or partially fixed, with firefox that number is 19% With IE 42% of all vulnerabilities were highly or extremely critical. With firefox that number is 19% with no extremely critical vulnerabilities at all.
I'll take 17 over 9 any day.
You are In the minority, I just checked the stats from my WebPages.
From the 15 Firefox users, nobody Is using the latest build of Firefox.
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5919/11ee.jpg
Also Firefox was released when? ABout November? the 1st patch was basically released this year where oust IE has been out since 1999. It's nice to see it hasnt been exploited too much recently, but that doesnt mean FFX is all of a sudden unsafe.
Also how reliable are your stats in the scheme of the web. You also need to define "latest version". Although 1.0.6 is the latest one, in terms of security 1.0.5 has the exact same fixes. The difference is that 1.0.6 was released to sole an issue with extensions breaking, so 1.0.5, while being a previous release is as secure. Anyone will tell you that site statistics fluctuate depending on who runs the site anyway. 1.5 will adress this by introducing an auto update inside the program that applies hot fixes, not dloading the app all over.
It's unbelievable that some people still think that Firefox Is a better browser, It's NOT a good browser, It's crap.
I do have Firefox on my SuSE Linux system, but I don't use It, the stupid browser crashes everytime I use It.
Huh? Are you saying users suffer from fixed security advisories?
Who cares how many the browsers got during 2005, what matters is how many holes the users suffer from.
Users don't suffer from closed holes.
Firefox 1.x is today affected by 21 advisories of varying severity, IE is by 83.
I rest my case...
That's true, and 9 flaws doesnt mean 9 critical flaws. DUH
Also Firefox was released when? ABout November?
Firefox 1.0 was released on November 9 of 2004, all builds before that were betas. (Preview Builds)
Firefox had 4 patches In 2004
http://secunia.com/product/4227/#advisories_2004
Anyone will tell you that site statistics fluctuate depending on who runs the site anyway.
Oh really, what are you smoking?
How do I have ANY control as to what browser people use to visit my webpages?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares how many the browsers got during 2005, what matters is how many holes the users suffer from.
Firefox 1.x is today affected by 21 advisories of varying severity, IE is by 83.
Internet Explorer Is several YEARS old
Firefox Is several MONTHs old
That's why, It matters how many flaws they had In 2005 - DUH
Though I too would agree that it's how many open & unpatched Vulnerabilities there are, (and the severity thereof) that counts, I've been using firefox as my primary browser since 0.4, so have my parents
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_layout_engine
You haven't been to any of my pages, none of my web pages are linked to Neowin.
You were viewing a screen capture of my browser stats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefox - From November 9, 2004 to 2005
Highly Critical - 4
Moderately Critical - 8
Internet Explorer - From November 9, 2004 to 2005
Extremely Critical - 1
Highly Critical - 3
Moderately Critical - 4
Firefox has had MORE Critical flaws than Internet Explorer ... Deal with It.
You can find holes in any software, but its how you deal with theses holes thats just as if not more important.
Quit the annoying colours please thanks
Are you saying Firefox has HAD MORE Critical flaws than Internet Explorer? Obviously, you need to look again.
Why don't you get ALL the critical flaws of EVERY version of Internet Explorer from ALL time periods and compare that data with Firefox?
Because that would be stupid on a grand scale.
Obviously people believe Firefox is more secure because of ... well, mostly market perception.
I could release a new browser right now: Introducing the mram browser. It has 0 critical patches. Granted it's been released about 2.6 seconds now. But hey, using your logic, it's the most secure browser around, even more secure than Firefox! (/sarcasm)
Seriously though, the only way to compare is density. Firefox has only been released for a limited time. During that same limited time, you can make comparisons of vulnerabilities across platforms. That is fair.
"Firefox has had MORE Critical flaws than Internet Explorer ... Deal with It.
OK, you leave me no choice but to get semantic on yer ass
"Had", past tense, as opposed to "has", present tense
As for "Deal with It." I dealt with it already by installing firefox
firefox isnt updatable like IE -> u download the whole thingy again... makes 3 downloads each for 3 version updates... uhmm... 6 downloads so far... not to mention the downloads u cancel and uuuuh...
well... but a nice rank tho... divide this number with X and u have an about right right amount of real users... oh and then the 100% switchers... way less too, because FF still has a not-100%-compatibility
well im browsing with both, IE and FF... i luv both...
so dont flame me for being an IE-user or stuff...
dont flame never ever btw...
my 2 cents
-fm
I think the thing here is that noone is claiming 75million is the size of the firefox user base. The article is 100% about dload counts. Asa and other firefox team members themselves have stated it isnt an indicator of number of users, although it may be a good means to indicate trends.
There are bugs as flaws and there are architectural flaws.
One flaw that FireFox doesn't have (some may say this is a disadvantage) is the integration into the OS.
We can debate this endlessly, but guess which browser exposes the OS more?
One that is totally integrated into the OS, or one that is not?
Can you try to answer this honestly? Can you say that Firefox exposes the Windows OS to the same kind of vulnerabilities as IE?