Why Mozilla Needs To Go Into Survival Mode 464
Crazzaper writes "I have been using Firefox for many years, and the war of the browsers has been around for longer than that. It just so happens that now we have a lot of options out there: IE, FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and others. People are always talking about how one browser is going to take down another, but maybe that's not the issue at all. It seems very possible that one browser, like Firefox, can be taken down by multiple browsers at once, whether or not there was any intention to compete specifically with Firefox. I hadn't seen it this way, but I do now."
Firefox lite. (Score:5, Interesting)
What they need to do is remember why the project started and get back to that.
Themes in 3.6? WTF were they thinking?
Chrome and Safari both have excellent built in Web dev/javascript tools, I don't even miss Web Developer Toolbar.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not themes, personas. Themes have been around for a long long time, but I think the personas as silly & superfluous.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you're concerned about bloat, maybe try Mozilla's seaMonkey? It looks like the old 90s-era Netscape, but with the same engine as Firefox.
Maybe my sarcasm detector is just failing, but you do realize that Firefox originated as a branch off of Seamonkey because it was thought that Seamonkey had become too bloated?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That might have been true when Firefox branched off but if you add up the resources used by Firefox and Thunderbird you'll find that Seamonkey is lighter. Since it is based on the same version of Gecko (the renderer) it is more or less in the same league speed-wise. Many Firefox-extensions work - or can be made to work - in Seamonkey as well.
I have used most current browsers in Li
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Interesting)
I just installed Opera & Chrome to do a little "taste test". I opened all three browsers & pointed them to Slashdot. One tab open for each one. According to Process Explorer, here is the memory footprint for each program.
Firefox = 214,832 K
Chrome = 111,820 K & 105,376 K
Opera = 218,212 K
I'm not seeing a big difference here.
This is on a Athlon Phenom II X4 955 w/ 4 GB of DDR3 running WinXP SP3.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Ad Block Plus? That keeps me on Firefox and of course the MASA theme. (Monkeys In Aftermarket Space Administration)
Re: (Score:2)
I only use Firefox because of their wonderful addons like Ad Block+
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Glimmer blocker [glimmerblocker.org].
It works as a 'proxy' so it works with all browsers.
I can inject javascript into any page (just like GreaseMonkey). Runs in the background. I haven't noticed much RAM or CPU usage.
Only downside is it doesn't do https sites, because the browser decodes those.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is an ABP extension [chromeextensions.org] for Chrome too. :)
Actually, the question was silly. Why do you "need" Mozilla to survive? As long as they have something that someone wants, then someone will use it. When they have something that no one wants, then they're just entertaining themselves.
But, the question of if Mozilla is going to die is just academic at this point. They only brought in $78.6 million dollars in 2008 [arstechnica.com]. Ya, only ... well ...
$78,600,000 (Mozilla)
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, the adblockers for chrome still download the ads, they just prevent the ad from displaying
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Interesting)
which is why we still use firefox, as the chrome version = security risk.
Meanwhile, firefox's "survival requirement" is nonexistent. They're doing just fine. They need to work on bloat and keep improving firefox, but they're not about to run out of relevance.
The money loss from the google deal ending may or may not be a big deal. It depends on if they keep up the deal again. They most certainly might do so, as google might see it as a smart investment to guarantee competition, basically.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
plenty of people know how to install firefox and adblock but don't know how to make a custom hosts file. I know how, but there's a reason we rely on adblock, and it's called pure laziness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's called "Ease of Use". Not everyone even knows what an IP address is, and expecting every single person on the planet to understand the concept is ludicrous.
And some of us who know what an IP address is don't want to waste time mucking with system files when there is a far more elegant solution.
Some of us are not 14 anymore, and don't think that taking the hard route makes one "hardcore".
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Informative)
"Hey dude, my IP address is 192.168.0.100 -- what's yours?"
"Well that's funny, I have the same one!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yes. actually it's ludicrous to expect every person on the internet to know any one piece of information. especially something that's intentionally hidden from the user.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like it. Even Stephen Timms, noted dumbass and so-called Minister for Digital Britain, doesn't know what it is.
According to him, IP address stands for Intellectual Property address [techeye.net].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But it has to do with them thar "Com-Puh-Tars"
There must be some funny effect with them. People who are perfectly able to do something when you tell them (quite complicated) "Do $STUFF" completely lock up mentally when you tell them "Do $STUFF on the computer"
Funny enough, the patent office seems to share this. Patents to "Do $STUFF in $WAY" that are completely obvious, and would be rejected immediately by any sane person get granted when they add two words. "Do $STUFF in $WAY on computer"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure. I have nothing better to do than maintaining my hosts file to block every single domain that serves ads. And you should see my mom hacking away with her computer's hosts file.
I don't even know why people use silly tools like browsers. I telnet to every site and write all the HTTP requests by hand, header by header. I don't get any ads this way because I don't type the requests to download the ads. See? Easy!
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Informative)
In particular, it's a latency problem for how fast pages render, even if you're not worried about the bandwidth. Slow 3rd-party advertisement and analytics servers still hold up the whole parade with Chrome adblockers: the adblock will run after you've sat around waiting on all that junk to resolve and load. With FF AdBlock's approach, if you block those 3rd-party domains, they get chopped out before the browser even bothers to resolve their DNS.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is also the issue of downloading huge amounts of ad data -- which all go against your 5gb (matters here) or 250gb (not so big here) per month limit.
The advertisers are using *MY* download quota without paying me for it.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, I think you've got it backwards. The advertisers are paying the bill for the content you're viewing.
Not that I have a moral issue with ad-blocking; quite the opposite. I just think it's silly that you're expecting to be reimbursed for your ad downloads. The CONTENT is the reimbursement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it actually make a difference long-term? I suppose ad metrics might be bad enough that it does, but it seems that in principle it shouldn't. If a site gets 2x as many ad loads, but half of those are fake, non-displayed ad loads, shouldn't the advertisers see that the conversion rate takes a 50% nosedive, and then drop by 50% the CPM they're willing to pay? So the site ends up in the same place; twice the ad views for half the revenue per ad view.
(It's of course possible that rates are too sticky for th
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Funny)
I click on the ads that have hot chicks in tight geek-themed t-shirts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I presently have all four browsers no five counting Opera. (Opera, Chrome, Safari, IE8, Firefox)
I still use FireFox most of the time. Not sure why? Oh, yeah it solved many spyware problems before IE had tabs and such at work. It IS getting bloated though now and I still have to have IE for some financial stuff that only works with IE for some stupid reason.
I don't use No Script. I also have to go to MSN sometimes. That's just how it is. FireFox is better for viewing Microsoft sites. We'll not reall
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There just aren't THAT many ads on websites to justify the irrational fear of not having Ad Block Plus that seems to abound in so many firefox users.
The number of ads are probably less relevant than the slowness of many advertising servers. At least that's why I started blocking ads a couple of years ago. On many pages, it took ages for the underpowered ad servers to respond, and until it did, the page wouldn't render. That problem went away completely with AdBlock Plus, and I haven't experienced it since. And those few times that I browse at some place without an ad blocker, I find that underpowered ad servers are still a major problem as it was back t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They started the project to develop a browser that was driven by user requirements (as opposed to the Mozilla suite, which was a behemoth driven by whatever developers were working on, all of the developers with check-in privileges).
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, the project started to give people choice.
Their goal was to save the web from a standards-hurting monopoly, not necessarily be the #1 in user base.
Thanks to Mozilla, we have that now.
Firefox can die in peace, the web was saved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, how sad and pathetic.
But there's always a battle to fight, the current one is proprietary codecs for the video tag in HTML 5.
Re: (Score:2)
What they need to do is remember why the project started and get back to that.
I know. You'd be surprised how many people would love an internet browser that does nothing but display a web page as fast as possible.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know. You'd be surprised how many people would love an internet browser that does nothing but display a web page as fast as possible.
Better way of phrasing that starts with 'You'd be surprised how few people..."
Let's face it -- Aurora, Midori, and other browsers that do that have been around for years. People don't use them because they want more their browser to do more.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't use them because they don't know about them. You think Firefox would have taken off if every Geek didn't install it on their mothers computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Insightful)
"You'd be surprised how many people would love an internet browser that does nothing but display a web page as fast as possible."
Those are probably the same idiots who want a cell phone that reliably makes phone calls.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd also be surprised at how many people claim to want that, but as soon as they get it begin asking... now what about all of the features it's missing. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, a spell check engine could easily be seen as bloat but I wouldn't use a browser without one.. same goes for tabs, an easily accessible search box, plug ins, full screen mode, auto complete, java-script debugger, and I'm sure the list is different for everybody.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd be surprised at the number of people who think that's what they want, but if they got it would then complain that Facebook didn't work properly, or Google mail or maps, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit I found from the new themes thing is that I was able to pick a theme that shaved about 5 pixels off the top by eliminating some of the horizontal lines between the menu bar, address bar, and bookmarks toolbar.
Re: (Score:2)
You can drag the address bar up next to the menu bar, that's what I used to do when I used FF.. makes sense on a widescreen monitor. The bookmarks toolbar is also pretty pointless when you have the bookmarks menu.. and at the very least there's probably a keyboard combination to toggle the bookmarks bar (ctrl-b on Chrome, probably the same for FF).
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:4, Informative)
Tree Style Tab
That takes your tabs, puts them on another side, (left, right, top or bottom, actually) and orders them as a tree, with the page you spawned tabs from as the main branch. Since I have widescreen monitors on everything, I set mine to be on the left. That gives me the maximum vertical space, and to be frank, I like the tree style, now that I've gotten used to it. I find it far more sensible than the default of putting them on top next to each other.
That and NoScript keep me stuck on Firefox. I won't choose another browser until I can get something as powerful and easy to use as NoScript for it. Every time I use a computer without it, it kills me. Life is so much better when you control what your browser does.
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Firefox lite. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What programmers start talking about making an app 'skinable' or 'themeable' its a good sign you need to run as they've stopped working on the goal and instead are fucking around with code for fun.
Mozilla is slightly different in this respect as it needs some 'skin'ability since it is recreating the widget set for the OS it runs on. However, when you jump to the point that users should be able to reskin your application ... and you invest a bunch of effort into 'making it easier' to skin the application ..
Go get your guns? (Score:5, Funny)
So does this mean they have to stock up on rice and firearms and survival gear?
Re:Go get your guns? (Score:5, Interesting)
This was marked as funny, but I actually would like to know what kind of strategies FF should follow.
What does "survival mode" means in this case? Race in new features?
Re:Go get your guns? (Score:5, Informative)
What does "survival mode" means in this case? Race in new features?
Find new money. Before Google pulls the plug.
Re:Go get your guns? (Score:5, Insightful)
It means stop adding new features and bear down on the core mission:
Make it more reliable, secure and faster.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As in "Do whatever it takes to survive." That means:
* Find out why old users leave
* Find out why new users don't come
* Fix those problems
* Make sure fixing those problems doesn't lead to new problems
I know I don't run FF anymore -- I switched to Chrome mostly because I was having PC troubles and often jumping from computer to computer or reformatting, and needed the seamless bookmarks sync (which turned out to be a major time saver). My original reason, however, was that when I was using my old computer,
Re:Go get your guns? (Score:4, Funny)
Not necessarily but keep your gcc handy just in case!
Extensions (Score:3, Informative)
Unless, the extensions I use are ported to another browser, I couldn't change from Firefox.
Name recognition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But people are rarely logical and tend to just do what others are doing.
That, or they keep doing what they've always been doing.
What they need... (Score:5, Insightful)
They really just need to go on a diet.
Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?
Re: (Score:2)
They really just need to go on a diet.
Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?
Firefox stresses my machine more than the games I play on it. I know browsers aren't simple pieces of code anymore but goddamn do they eat a ton of resources (said me with twenty tabs open.) Yeah, we're asking them to do a lot but they still fall on their faces quite a bit with memory leaks. Firefox is awful about that, hands down. The next release should be less about doing new things and doing the old things better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?
I remember how it was supposed to be, but I don't remember that it ever was. I switched from the Mozilla Suite to Thunderbird and Phoenix, and found that the total RAM footprint went up. Firefox used less memory than the entire suite, but the combination of the two apps used more because they didn't share the core libs (they each came with their own install of all of the XUL/XPCOM stuff). Since then, it got progressively bigger.
I actually have FireFox 3.6 installed at the moment, and it seems quite l
Re:What they need... (Score:5, Informative)
Hey guys; remember how it was supposed to be a fast browser?
While FF has certainly gained features, it hasn't slowed down while doing so. In fact, it's seen fairly dramatic performance INCREASES. FF hasn't gotten any slower; expectations have sharply risen.
We now expect to be able to program a 3D FPS in Javascript and CSS. The very idea was considered laughable just a few years ago. I've spent the last year building a statistical computation software that's entirely web-based, and entirely written in javascript. This, too, would have been a laughable goal if not for the dramatic performance improvements in FF and Chrome. (We don't currently support IE8 because it's just too slow; hopefully IE9 will be worthy of supporting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've spent the last year building a statistical computation software that's entirely web-based, and entirely written in javascript.
Dear god! Why?
Some people believe that in order to grow closer to their spiritual nature they must torture their physical form to the utmost.
Corporeal Mortification - not just for overzealous Catholics anymore.
Firefaux (Score:5, Funny)
No, what needs to happen is: (Score:4, Funny)
Battle of the Browsers simply isn't what it used (Score:5, Insightful)
to be.
Back in the early 1990s, it was seen as a threat by Microsoft to usurp the OS paradigm. They thought whoever controlled the browser market controlls the internet and what it can do -- the tail wagging the dog and it seemed like the future of computing was at stake. And for a while, it succeeded when IE took over and had ridiculously large marketshare.
But now that the ecosystem is more varied, the browser simply does not have this power. Until a browser become so dominant again that they can embrace, extend, extinguish standards, it really doesn't matter that much anymore. Now, the best browser is almost as impotent to change computing as the best picture viewing software (except for maybe data gathering and ad revenue) -- if everything is correctly specced JPGs, PNGs, etcetera -- the picture viewer doesn't matter that much and can be readily interchange with regards to personal preference.
Mobile phones is one exception but also because you can't swap out browsers/rendering engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying it (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, Firefox has some issues. Yes, the Mozilla team needs to fix them. However, I think this article is being overly sensationalistic (surprise, surprise). In a wonderful bout of irony, the same forces that made long-standing IE users jump to FF are keeping them using FF. Some are averse to learning a new UI/control scheme, others needs certain extensions to remain productive. Then there are a few, like me, who don't see the performance/crashing issues that others report. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I haven't experienced them.
Additionally, FF has been approved for use in many businesses, as well as the DoD/DHS to run on their networks. Chrome, AFAIK, hasn't.
With these forces slowing down non-Firefox adoption, the Mozilla team has bought themselves some crucial time in the quest to right some of their browser's weaknesses. Hopefully they'll be able to meet that challenge, and, from reading the various blogs published to Planet Mozilla, I'm fairly confident that they will.
Re:Not buying it (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I think this article is being overly sensationalistic (surprise, surprise).
It's not actually so much sensationalist as much as it's pointless. It's a huge laundry list of statistics that don't actually add up to any really worthwhile conclusions on their own merit. And I always hate it when people blow up the graph of a 1-6% change (in this instance Chrome) to the same absolute size as the other graphs where data is tenfold, but the slope is steeper so it looks fantastic. That's just plain silly. A less generic graph would have been one showing changes relative to IE6's graph (decline), or something like that, something that actually paints a picture of what is going on, beyond the obvious. But that would take some real effort...
#1 firefox issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't manage it in a corporate/enterprise environment. Push out updates? Not as a limited user. Push out configuration? Not simply. Push out plugins, or plugin updates? Not simple.
That, more than anything else, will keep firefox out of the enterprise/corporate markets. If that even matters to them, seeing how this is still an issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity: why does it matter whether you can do this as a limited user or whether you need admin privileges? I would have thought that anybody who is tasked with doing this kind of maintenance for a company would get admin rights?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Someone's even created ADM templates [sourceforge.net] for you.
Though it's still not as easy as IE is with WSUS, it's not any worse than trying to keep Java, Flash & Acrobat up to date & properly configured.
Google can kill FF; won't beat IE in big orgs. (Score:2)
FTA: "It is believed that Google’s royalties account for about 80-90% of Mozilla’s entire revenues. The royalty contract will end in 2011."
So they can kill FF soon. Although they're already doing a pretty good job feature-wise.
This has been discussed on /. before. Will "don't be evil" be enough to stop them killing a strategic competitor?
Anyways, as shown by the article, for the moment IE, (in all its versions) remains the one to catch.
How many corporations, (some still stuck with ActiveX shit
Yes, but ... (Score:2)
All observations made by the submitter notwithstanding, I really think there is no reason to drag concepts like "survival mode" in here. What Mozilla needs to do for Firefox to survive is to make it compelling. Compelling enough that people will want to use it in preference to other browsers. I don't think there is much more to it than that.
Mind controlled firefox (Score:5, Funny)
They are actually working on a mind controlled version of Firefox. Unfortunately it only works if you think in Russian.
HTML5, Web 3.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that concerns me the most is the issue with HTML5 video codecs. Microsoft, Google and Apple all want Flash to die. Apple's latest licensing change with iPhone OS 4.0 is a full-out declaration of war against Adobe.
HTML5, SVG, hyper-optimized Javascript and the embedded video tag will make Flash redundant. If Firefox cannot stay on the bleeding edge of these advancements then it does not stand a chance.
So I suggest less bells and whistles (skinning / themes, for example), and more concentration on HTML5 - especially the video codec licensing / patent issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The solution is simple, and now probably inevitable: use the platforms native media framework (QT, DS, GST) (or perhaps use gst on all platforms). Momentum continues to increase for h.264, and it seems less and less likely that Mozilla, Opera, and Wikimedia can force Theora into widespread use. Mozilla will certainly continue the good fight against h.264 for some time, but soon enough there will be little choice, aside from becoming a bit player. Using the media framework as a backend shouldn't actually be
Not big on Chrome and IE9 won't do it for me, but- (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I agree with the summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
theora = suicide (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrome is the future (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have anything against Google, but the thought of them having the browser market share that IE currently has scares me. It is not unreasonable to think that it might happen. Google is already the overwhelmingly dominant search engine. They have been fairly successful at most of the things they have worked at.
Flaming (Score:3, Funny)
Please dont describe obscure brands like Firefox without providing an introduction.
For those of you that haven't heard, please see more at http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Firefox [wikipedia.com]
Re:No extensions, no FF killer (Score:5, Informative)
This will certainly interest you then: https://chrome.google.com/extensions [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have Chrome for Linux? I'll have to check ports to see if it's on FreeBSD yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Serious inquiry re: Adblock (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Serious inquiry re: Adblock (Score:4, Informative)
Adblock blocks ads that NoScript doesn't. I may want Java script to generally run on a specific website. So i would whitelist that site in NoScript. Without Adblock I would then get ads while on that site. With both I can allow scripts while still enjoying an ad-free browsing experience.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are looking at it from your perspective, but do the masses really care about these things? Firefox's position is actually pretty tenuous - it comes largely from geeks telling their friends to use it, but if the geeks get annoyed at Firefox (something that has already started) there could be a mass exodus. Also, Firefox depends largely on Google for its revenue; while Google has not indicated they will stop supporting firefox, they could end their relationship if Firefox becomes weak enough.
BTW, Chrome's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you just don't know what other browsers offer.
Since you mentioned Opera with which I'm familiar and few extensions "specifically":
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] + built in GUI element blocker + js black & whitelisting are all there for a long time
Similarly with...no, not all by a long shot, but...many lists of functionalities people list as "must have" and obviously available only in FF...
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm sorry, but unless and until every browser has the "extensions" feature that FF has (Specifically including Adblock Plus and No Script) then NO browser will EVER be a true "Firefox Killer".
I agree that the extensions are great. I use ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself. However, I think it is worth noting that they do not always play along nicely, especially ABP and NoScript, and sometimes they also overlap functionality in the same area. That is of course the basic problem with extensions: you can
Re: (Score:2)
IE has had extensions for ages. Longer than Firefox. They're just called Toolbars... I've never been able to get a satisfactory explanation of why Firefox extensions are better, except that there happens to be more of them.
Re:No extensions, no FF killer (Score:4, Insightful)
When people gush about Firefox extensions they gush about PARTICULAR extensions. They just don't mindlessly drone on about the feature in general. They tend to specifically cite what it is that they personally get out of the extensions that are available and what needs to be on competing browser.
All you've told me is that IE has some similar extension feature.
I have no clue whether or not any of those extensions are someone I would actually want to use.
Although IE just has a long history of being a malware magnet. Even if you compare pristine versions of browsers, IE sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but unless and until every browser has the "extensions" feature that FF has (Specifically including Adblock Plus and No Script) then NO browser will EVER be a true "Firefox Killer".
Chrome is OK, but without extensions it's nothing more than a runner-up. The same for Opera and IE#. Safari is nothing more than a side-show.
How very true. Firefox has a big thingy going for it; It's been there long enough to appear on the corporate world screens.....If you are the CTO equivalent in any mid sized company, and you lack the resources to assist people using IE, you want something that is a) known, b) it does not crash the operating system with it when it crashes, c) customizable in some way or other.
I have been using Firefox for a longish time now, and while all the non-IE browsers share the most important quality (i.e, they're n
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Earlier today, I'd been surfing $otherTechSite in Chrome. The header loaded, but the content of the site wouldn't. Chrome indicated it was waiting on ad.doubleclick.net ...back to Firefox!
Perhaps you're so inured to the garish, Blade Runner-esque adspace that you don't need NoScript, but I enjoy not letting javascript execute as a matter of course.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Personally I telnet to port 80. By whistling down my phone line really precisely. Using only zeroes, no ones.