Firefox and the Internet

No, it's not the latest genetic experiment, it's an Internet web browser and it's changing the Internet as we speak.

Before Internet Explorer, which is the most widely-used browser today, most people paid for the Netscape web browser. It was popular, it was widely used, and it had many extensions of HTML (the coding in web pages).

Then Internet Explorer showed up. It was fast, it supported standard, and above all, it came with the popular Windows operating system. Slowly but surely, Netscape lost market share to Internet Explorer, until eventually AOL bought out Netscape and set up the Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation released the Netscape source code, used to create the software, and many independent developers were able to contribute to the Mozilla source.

However, there was a problem. Many people began to complain that Mozilla was too bloated. It contained a browser, e-mail, chat, web design and other functions, all in one program, and all ran whenever the program was started. In response, the Mozilla Foundation split them apart. The web design features went into a program called Nvu. Calendar features went into Sunbird and a calendar feature for the new e-mail client, Thunderbird. And the web browser, it was called...

Phoenix.

I'm sure a large group of you just asked "What about Firefox?" Well, at first, it was called Phoenix. After some legal issues arose, the name was changed to Firebird. More legal issues led to a renaming to Firefox. Now Firefox has almost 10% of web usage.

But what makes Firefox so great?

Well, for one thing, the browser is very secure. Internet Explorer is deeply integrated into the Windows operating system, so if something compromises the security of Internet Explorer, the entire computer is at risk. Firefox stands by itself, so if it was to be compromised, it would not pose a threat to the computer as a whole.

Further, Internet Explorer is set to run what are known as ActiveX controls. These were intended to allow the installation of software to improve the user experience, but is now mostly used to install spyware and viruses into the system. Firefox does not support ActiveX controls at all, and anything that does try to install requires you to wait three seconds and confirm, so nothing gets into your system without your knowledge.

But what about the experience for the end user? Well, the most noticeable thing that Firefox (and any other modern browser, for that matter) brings to the table is tabbed browsing. Why have 10 Internet windows open when you can have one window with 10 tabs? Tabs make it easier to organize your browsing experience. Plus, if you accidentally close a tab, you can get it back with our next reason to use Firefox.

Extensions, as the name implies, extend the browser's features. Extensions can be written by anybody and are almost limitless in what they can do. One of the most popular extensions, AdBlock, does exactly as the name implies--it blocks advertisements. Other extensions provide any number of features, and since you only add the ones you want, you can remove extensions if the browser becomes too bloated.

You can also add themes to your browser. With Internet Explorer, you're pretty much stuck with the same theme that Windows uses. But with Firefox, you can download a number of different themes and use the one that you like best.

(Added 11-30-2005) My favorite new feature in the newly-released Firefox 1.5 is integrated support for SVG. SVG is short for Scalable Vector Graphics. If you've ever seen a Flash animation, then you should have a general idea of what SVG is. I like it because it allows for coding of images by hand, and it uses open standards. No single company controls SVG, and as such, many different programs exist for making SVG with no restrictions. It is also useful in making images that don't look blocky or blurry when zoomed in. If you have Firefox 1.5, give SVG a try.

Despite all these things, Firefox is not the only alternative web browser, and some people may prefer other browsers. For example, AOL still releases Netscape, which at this point is little more than Firefox hacked to borrow the Internet Explorer rendering engine for web pages at certain times.

Opera has been around for a long time, and is very reminiscent of the old Mozilla browser in its features. It contains a browser, e-mail, chat, and other things, but unlike Mozilla, Opera manages to do it without using a lot of memory. It's not as customizable (at least, not as easily as Firefox is), and when I used it, I personally did not like the feel of it. But many people do like it and like it a lot, and I always recommend that people try as many things as they can to find what works for them.

At this point, Internet Explorer is unsafe and is behind in features, plus it is extremely difficult for web designers to make pages that look nice in it. While you may choose Firefox, Opera, Netscape, or any other browser you may find, I can't stress enough how much moving off of Internet Explorer can help you and the developers who build websites.

Open Formats: What and Why

Anyone who hasn't been living in a hole for the last 15 years has heard of Microsoft, and knows of their products, such as Windows (95, 98, 2000, ME, XP), Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access), or perhaps some of their other products. Many people have their documents, music, and other files in Microsoft-specific formats. Likewise, people may have their files in special file formats for other major companies.

So when we talk about those formats, they are called "closed formats." This is because in the event that you lose access to your software that you have paid for, such as Office (which runs as high as $400 retail), you are effectively locked out of your files. This also means that transferring files between different versions of the same program, for instance taking a file saved in Word 2003 and opening it on Word 2000, there are likely to be compatibility issues.

The opposite is true of so-called "open formats." These formats are free for use and are fully documented and open. Any programmer can use these formats free of charge. Further, they adhere to strict standards so that compatibility between versions of software is not an issue (usually). Just the fact that no single company can drop support or change it means that no matter how far into the future you go, you should still be able to read your document in its original manner, and there should be a free tool to do so.

Microsoft vs. OpenDocument

Chances are that if you are tech-savvy enough, you know what .doc is. That's the current Word document format, dating to at least 1995. However, despite .doc having existed for a long time, it has seen many changes. If you open a document you made with Word 95 on today's Word 2003, it would likely look very different, although your text will be the same.

OpenDocument was developed in response to problems like these. It is a creation of Sun, who is responsible for the program known as OpenOffice.org, a free Office suite that performs many of the same functions as Microsoft Office. It is now managed by a board known as OASIS (and is commonly called the OASIS OpenDocument format), of which several companies, Microsoft included, are members.

OpenDocument uses a zip container to hold data. What this means is that when you look at a .odt file (OpenDocument Text), you could rename it .zip and look inside. The same is true of the other OpenDocument formats. You'll find any images or other content you use in your document, as well as the document itself in an easy-to-read XML format. This means that all the text is plainly readable, surrounded only with tags to indicate where each piece of text goes, its font, and so on. This method results in much smaller file sizes and makes it easy to view your documents for the necessary text, even if you do not have a program to read it with.

OpenDocument is supported by OpenOffice.org, obviously, along with several other less-known products such as AbiWord. Microsoft is also free to implement support for it in Office; however, has so far said they will refuse to do so.

Instead, Microsoft is going in a different direction. Starting in Office 12 (due out next year, most likely under a name like Office 2006 or Office Vista), Microsoft will save documents in their own XML-based format. However, this indicates that Microsoft software will be preferred for reading these documents. Other programs will have to pay to license the ability to read it, or will simply not work with it.

OpenDocument is being experimented with in several places, including the state of Massachusetts, which has stated that all documents produced after December 2006 by the state government must be in the OpenDocument format. This is so that people do not have to spend obscene amounts of money on the Microsoft software needed to read it.*

*Microsoft formats are supported by OpenOffice, but will often contain formatting errors, as it is not officially licensed from Microsoft.

MP3 vs. WMA vs. AAC vs. OGG Vorbis, and FLAC

Almost everyone knows what an MP3 is. MP3s are compressed audio files. Some people might not understand why open formats would be needed when it comes to music; MP3 support is free, right?

Well, not exactly. When you use it, someone is paying licensing fees for use of some patents on the MP3 format. In addition, MP3 is a relatively old format, and as such there are better methods of compression these days. This alone should make it clear that MP3 is an outdated choice.

The biggest flaw, according to the music industry, is the lack of DRM. I explained what DRM is in the last column, and MP3 does not contain any. In response, Microsoft created Windows Media Audio format, or WMA. While it is free and has better compression than MP3, it also has some pretty strong DRM. You are restricted on where it can be played. It is still not supported outside of Windows and does not work with the iPod, though it IS supported on a number of other media players.

AAC is the other competitor. Apple uses a modified form of AAC for its iPod and iTunes (for DRM purposes), but again, this one demands royalties, just like MP3, to Dolby Labs. It also sounds much better than MP3, but once again, support for it is dismal, especially on portable media players, though it is supported on the iPod.

The other two formats, OGG Vorbis and FLAC, are open formats and are therefore free. OGG Vorbis is seeing more support in recent years among non-Apple audio players, and according to many sounds the best of the four compressed audio formats. Because it is completely free, you never have to worry about having to pay for the software needed to run it, although you may need to locate a new portable media device if you want to listen to them on the go.

FLAC is different from all these other formats. FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, meaning that FLAC merely compresses blank areas, leaving all the rest of the original information intact. Audiophiles in particular tend to like this format, as it saves disk space without sacrificing audio quality. Regardless, for the average person this is probably overkill and does result in much larger file sizes.

While MP3 is the established standard, there are several media formats in use, and the open ones are the ones that can be counted on to always be listenable on computers, due to documented standards.

DRM and You

My first true post on here is going to be about DRM, or "Digital Rights Management," and what it means for the consumer.

Chances are that you have heard of DRM before, but did not take major notice of it until the Sony XCP affair. While I won't be getting into that today, I will discuss what DRM is, how it works, and why you should care about it, regardless of what certain executives at Sony might think.

When the original idea of copyright was introduced, the thought was that artists (writers, painters, etc.) would create works to satisfy their natural urge to do such things. In an effort to reward such artists for their work, the idea of a limited copyright was allowed, so that artists could make money off their works until a reasonable amount of time had passed, after which it would be put into the public domain.

The primary concept that held copyright together was the idea that the ability to copy was extremely limited. With books, it would be difficult to copy each individual word and create new "bootleg" books, if you will. Artworks of all kinds faced similar constraints, even as late as the 1980's, when audio casette tapes and VHS came about, as these produced low-quality copies of original materials that were often unsatisfactory. People relied on publishers and labels to produce and publicize their works.

Now we move into today. With the addition of simple components to a computer, nearly identical copies can be made of music and video, with little or no loss in quality. In addition, the Internet makes it possible to quickly distribute music to a wide audience for relatively little cost. Computers make it easy to produce one's own music very easily and inexpensively.

These things can be good or bad. Good in the sense that now anybody, regardless of whether or not they have the backing of a publisher or label, can get into making and selling artwork. Bad because piracy of such materials is increasingly easier and more widespread.

This is where DRM comes in. In order to restrict the piracy of such materials, labels have begun to place what's known as "Digital Rights Management" on their CDs in order to prevent the copying of music. However, this DRM is often overly restrictive, trampling on the users' fair use rights (as established in The Betamax Case before the Supreme Court in the early 1980's) and causing overall instability and other issues. This is where the major conflict with DRM is.

The worst part is that this DRM does not actually stop piracy. For example, it is easily stopped on the Windows line of operating systems by holding down the [Shift] key on the keyboard while inserting the CD. The DRM has no effect at all on the Mac or Linux operating systems. Other systems of DRM were as easy to defeat as using a Sharpie marker on the correct portion of the CD, or other simple methods. The people that the companies are trying to stop from pirating are not being affected. The only effect this has is to limit the ability of music that less tech-savvy users "own." I put "own" in quotation marks because in reality these days, people do not own their copies of music or movies, they are simply "licensing" a copy. When you purchase a piece of software and you agree to a EULA (End User License Agreement), you are most likely agreeing to a license to use the software in a specific way. If you truly owned the copy, you could do whatever you wished with it, including loaning it to friends and making copies.

In my view, the primary issue is that the large role that the labels play in music is outdated. Their business model no longer makes sense in our world. They spend roughly $3 per CD to make, give the artist $0.20, and then take the rest for themselves, supposedly for promotion which is done primarily by radio stations and music-related television networks, which are owned by these companies anyway. In this day and age, the production and distribution of music can be quickly and cheaply done online. The only thing the labels can do is produce physical CDs for those who want them, and to promote the artist.

What surprises me most is that even when a free solution such as the Internet is available, many people prefer to take the high road and buy the CD, not only to feel like they own a copy, but also to support the artist. With or without this DRM, some people will make copies freely via such things as the old Napster or KaZaA or other peer-to-peer services. However, many others will continue to buy and use music as they do today. What this indicates is that people are willing to support artists they like, and I am no exception. The biggest problem appears to be the obscene cost of music. A true artist would want to sell more albums at a lower profit, as it could very well draw more money and more listeners. Providing cheap CDs to people (and remember, the cheaper they are the more they can buy) makes them more likely to want to spend money on live shows, bonus material, clothing, and other, more profitable things for the artists.

But the labels don't want to see that happen, because if these things were to happen, they would be out of business, and with good reason. The labels are obsolete in their current form. I believe that they know this and are using the power they have to extend their lives as long as possible. Their time has come, and it is imperative that we take a stand against them. They seek to make obscene profits for themselves while giving the artists little money from their record sales.

Why do we insist on supporting the label and not the artist? I, for one, am currently boycotting commercial music, because I feel bad for the artists that are not getting their fair share. I know many people do not want to give up their music, so here are some tips.

• Go to live events. There's nothing quite like a live event. The artist gets a majority of the money from those and you get to hear your music. It's a win/win!
• Listen to independent artists. My personal favorite artist, John Vanderslice, is an independent artist. He is not affiliated with a major label and even his CD sales go primarily to him.
• Buy used CDs. Money from these sales do not go to record labels, as these sales have already been made. This is a cost-effective legal way to continue to enjoy commercial music, even if you have to wait a few months to buy that new CD.

I hope that you now better understand not only what DRM does, but why it is important and why I feel it is necessary to fight it.

Welcome to Simple PC!

Hello and welcome to Simple PC!

Simple PC came about following a long political and technological discussion with my friends about politics in Washington and the Sony XCP issue.

My goal here is to simplify tech-related issues and political issues and bring some of the more obscure issues to the public's attention. I consider this to be my top goal, considering how little attention was put on the Sony XCP issues by the American media.

Before I begin my regular postings on Simple PC, I feel I should tell a little about myself. My internet alias is Trip Ericson, a name you may be familiar with if you visit such sites as AVSForum or Radio-Info. I am an active member at both sites, and am behind my short-lived political comedy site Quelorant.Com and my non-political comedy series, The Adventures of Normal Guy. I am also the creator of RabbitEars, a site dedicated to listing all the television stations in the United States, as an effort to replace now subscription-only 100000watts.com.

At the time of this posting I am 17 and live in South-Central Virginia. I was on the principal's list (all A's) every year until this year. I began to take much harder college-level courses for half of the day and am now on the Honor Roll rather than the Principal's List.

I enjoy History class a lot and am captain of the History ACE Team. I am also obsessed with politics and will admit up front that I tend to be quite liberal on many issues; however, when discussing technical non-political issues, I will attempt to remain as unbiased as possible.

I do not believe that Fox News is conservative-biased, just that they will take whatever bias is necessary to draw ratings. I am not religious but I am not an atheist, I simply do not know nor care to know whether or not a God or Gods exist. I am extremely anti-war, simply because I view war as pointless and wasteful. I also have a hard time with blood and am unable to watch most graphic war movies.

I own a Toshiba A15-S157 laptop, running Fedora Core 4 Linux with a little-used dual-boot to Windows XP. In addition, I also own a custom-built (by the high school computer shop) PII 266MHz desktop computer that I use for testing and running Windows 2000. I own a Nintendo GBA-SP and it is my only gaming device. I have a US Cellular cell phone not because I necessarily like the service, but because it is the only company that provides service to my area. I own three digital television receivers, two are computer cards, and use them all the time. I also own many different radios and TVs, including a shortwave radio, an MP3/CD/ATRAC-3/AM/FM/TV/WeatherBand device, several AM/FM radios, and a 2.3" TV.

If anyone would like to know any more about me, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer.