http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-201004-201104

Note: the graph shows combined usage share of all versions of respective browsers, so it doesn't just show usage share of e.g. Firefox 3 and IE6 but Firefox 1-4 and IE 1-9.

As you can see, IE saw a rapid decline in usage share in Europe in the last year, obviously since lots of former IE users switched to using Chrome whereas Firefox users tended to continue using Firefox instead of switching over to Chrome. As a consequence of this, in November last year Firefox overtook IE in usage share and is still holding the #1 position. However, in the last three months Firefox's usage share seems to have started slowly falling as well. This is puzzling a bit, since Chrome's increase in usage share doesn't seem to have sped up. The biggest advantage Firefox had over IE seems to have been in March, when IE had 35.92% while Firefox had 37.12%. April is only halfway through but it's interesting to note that so far since last month:

• Chrome's usage share increased by 0.68%,
  
• IE's usage share decreased by 0.11%,
  
• Firefox's usage share decreased by 0.51%.

From those numbers, Chrome obviously seems to have started chipping away at Firefox's usage share more than it does at IE's usage share. Chrome's usage share seems to be increasing at a relatively constant rate for the last year (with the biggest increase being from November 2010 to December 2010, +1.49%). When you take a look at http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-200904-201104, besides noticing the "death of Opera", you will notice that Chrome's usage share seems to have grown "linearithmically" during the first year, while during the second year the increase in growth seems to have slowed down and the usage share is now increasing at a semi-linear rate.

The release of Firefox 4 doesn't seem to have had a serious effect on Firefox's usage share so far, but that can still change until the end of the month.

It will be interesting to see whether Chrome's increasing popularity will cause Firefox to fall back to second place, or will Firefox remain in front of IE until Chrome overtakes them both, or will the increase in Chrome's usage share slow down and/or stop and Firefox remain on the first place, or (my favourite outcome) will usage share of Chrome increase until it overtakes IE but stop then, leaving Firefox at #1, Chrome at #2 and IE at #3.

Interesting it seems people like more simple browsers like Chrome , Opera is pretty dang good . ( I am an avid user myself and still believe it is better than everyone else) Then again Opera doesn't have much advertisemants as Chrome does it seems.

I would gladly try out browsers other than Firefox, but lack of extremely flexible blocking of both ads and tracking servers (provided to Firefox by Adblock Plus) in every other browser is an immediate deal-breaker for me.

Chrome isn't the simple lightweight browser it was at launch, now it's a feature-rich superbrowser with monster speeds and support for the latest technology including hardware accelerated graphics.

Of course Opera still pwns all browsers in... well everything except Addon support (Firefox takes the cake there)

I don't think that IE will ever die though... it'll bounce back up when (or if) Microsoft starts advertising it properly.



Chrome's AdBlock is actually really good now. The team behind it has been updating it faster than Google devs update Chrome (version 0-11 in 3 years? seriously google?)

Last time I asked about it, it only prevented ads from being shown on a web-page, not preventing the browser from actually downloading them. That's not good enough.

And does it have the ability to block tracking servers like http://www.keyvan.net/2008/12/block-google-anolytics-with-easyprivacy/?

It blocks them from being downloaded (since version 2.0)


I have no idea, but I know an easy fix for that. Stop being paranoid.


:P :cookie:

Oh look. The Chrome botnet is growing. :turned:

Taking care of your privacy is not being paranoid, since apparently in this day and age no one else seems to give a crap about it, http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975.

Just give in, you know you want to. The assimilation process doesn't hurt (much).

Chrome! Available right now!


Side effects may include headaches, alcoholism, spontanious combustion, random detaching of limbs or the sudden loss of ones head.


oh privacy is so overrated. I'm willing to bet that it will be impossible to be anonymous on the internet in a few years. All sites you register on will require your real name. And quite frankly it makes perfect sense to do that.

If you really think so then I would like to see a public blog or something similar of yours in which you post everything you do, including but not limited to whenever you go to the bathroom and why, whenever you eat or drink something and what, whenever you watch porm and which, whenever you have six with someone and whom and which positions, whenever you mastvrbate etc.

Not that I myself particularly want to know any of that about you, but that would be a good enough proof for me that you seriously think that privacy is overrated.

Unless you have something to hide.

that's way out of context dude

What I'm saying is that being anonymous on the internet is like wearing a mask in public (something that's illegal in a few countries, including France)

Would you talk to someone you met in the street if he was wearing a mask and wouldn't tell you his identity? Probably not, at least you wouldn't trust that person one bit. Concealing your identify on a public forum is never accepted in real life.

it's not a matter of privacy, it's just a matter of human rights. We have the right to know who is talking to us, that applies in real life and it should apply on the internet too.




I'm not talking about revealing your darkest secrets to the world, just your real name.



People always think that they are safe from the law when they are online, that what they do and say online isn't real and that they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's rather stupid if you ask me. The internet isn't above the law. It isn't some magical place that has nothing to do with the real world.

Out of which context? That's all privacy, so it isn't out of context of that.



I would argue that it isn't and is a completely different thing.

First of all someone you meet in public is physically there in front of/beside you. Someone you meet in public can try to hurt you physically, rob you etc. Someone you "meet" on-line cannot do any of those things and the only thing that is physically in front of you is some text that person wrote. I don't see how that is even close to seeing a person in public.



Indeed I wouldn't, but like I said, it's a completely different matter.



I'm pretty sure you don't walk around carrying a big sign with your name and surname written on it.



I have never heard of such a right.


edit:

Exactly! And you wouldn't want to have 1984-style big brother(s) in real life, would you? Blocking tracking servers is my way of blocking the big brothers. A web browser with which I can't do that is useless for me.

Erm, privacy is a human right....

That too, as opposed to knowing who is talking to you.

I'm a Chrome user and after spectating this debate, I've grown a little paranoid. Should I switch to FireFox?

Whatever, this is already happening so there is no point in discussing it. Right now there is a company in Iceland that is creating a thing called a "Personal Identification Card" (rough translation) which is basically a plastic card with a microchip in it that contains all your personal information. Their plan is to make this card a necessity to sign up for any services online and you can also use the card in real life to access your bank accounts at the bank and other things.

Right now this is one of the ways you can use to sign on to your online bank. It's not required but it will be when the card specifications are complete.

This isn't just in Iceland, the company I'm talking about has already talked to most of the major banks in Europe and they are all interested in this system. The plan is to start with banks then move on to other web services until it becomes necessary by law to use the card on all online services.

I've been discussing this subject a lot with some pretty intelligent people and they all agree that this is what is going to happen in a near future. The internet as it is is a wild, unfiltered mess and it's the fact that people can be anonymous which is causing most of the problems.

Using this personal identification card would effectively eliminate piracy and information theft since you'd have to use the card to sign up for web hosts.


You can call me crazy and say that my claims are ridiculous, and many would agree with you, but this is what's happening. But like I said, it's only in early stages of development and this thing has barely had an publicity in Iceland so don't except to see news poppin' up about this internationally for the new few years.





:rolleyes:

We know that. The fact that something is happening is no reason not to oppose it.

If you want an advice from me, I think you should switch to Chromium. It's basically the same as Chrome, but it's free (as in as a bird, not beer) and I hear it has an extension which enables you to block tracking servers. I still favour Firefox over it because I've gotten used to many Firefox extensions of which no Chromium counterparts exist yet.



If anything like that ever happens or even gets a serious chance of happening I will be the first to protest against it and if you think that I'd be the only one or that I'd be a member of minority you are hugely mistaken.

Why? What is so terrible about revealing your real name to the owners of the website? It's not like the information will be available to everyone. It's just so that if someone commits a crime online he won't get away with it because there is no way of knowing who it was.

Is it really so wrong to want to eliminate criminals, trolls and impostors online?


Would you feel uncomfortable using your real name to sign up for a class in real life? or a discussion group of some sorts? Think about it.

I can't understand why someone would refuse to use his real name when signing up for a service. Unless said person was a criminal, troll, hacker or something like that.

If you really think that's the only way it would be used you are simply na?ve. It's quite a slippery slope once everyone is required to provide their real name to nearly every web-site they visit. Don't you think someone will get the idea to gather all the data about so many people in one place? And someone with so much real information about so many people is quite a dangerous factor.

You didn't answer the question.

Also, what the hell can they do with your name? Absolutely nothing.

Besides, it's not hard to find someones name. Phonebooks, company websites with staff listings, schools and a lot of other things have your name available for everyone.

So I assume that by your logic the phonebook is a very dangerous thing, since it has so many names in it. Can you imagine what would happen if it got into the wrong hands? :cold: /sarcasm

Until the-site-that-must-not-be-named happens to hack that site and gets a nice database of names, IPs, and personal data.

Here is a quote from wise man:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

I believe that this quote is relevant here. I'm not exactly fond of giving up my freedom of remaining anonymous on the internet in the name of security.

Not just the name, but they would have a log of nearly every (if not literally every as your fantasy suggests) web-site you have visited and when. I'm sorry, but to me that's a bit too much information for me to divulge to anyone who would be willing to pay whomever gathers all that information.


edit:

Or not even willing to pay, but that.


edit2:

You are being ridiculous. It's not the real name that's the issue, but being able to literally log nearly every activity of yours on the Internet. That's what would be possible and that's what I'm against.