We’re getting ready to order Camino t-shirts and we want to gauge demand. If you would order a Camino t-shirt, please comment on this post… Try not to say you would and then not actually get one. We’ll order enough for everyone who wants one.

About the Camino t-shirts:
- navy (dark) blue
- American Apparel makes the shirts themselves
- Camino logo on the front, “Camino” under it
- either “www.caminobrowser.org” or “Mac Style, Mozilla Power” on the back

Macworld recently posted a review of Mac web browsers.

Macworld’s verdicts, best to worst:
Firefox 1.0.6 – 4.5/5
Safari 2.0 – 4/5
OmniWeb 5.1.1 – 4/5
Opera 8.0.2 – 3.5/5
Camino 0.8.4 – 3/5

My verdicts, best to worst (note I am not talking about Firefox 1.5b1 or Camino 1.0a1):
Safari 2.0 – 4/5
Camino 0.8.4 – 3.5/5
OmniWeb 5.1.1 – 3.4/5
Firefox 1.0.6 – 3/5
Opera 8.0.2 – 2/5

Before I explain why I think Macworld’s ranking are pretty bad, I have to point out a couple things about the general quality of their “review”:

“The only noticeable speed difference used to be Firefox’s very long program-launch time, which seems to be resolved in version 1.0.6.”

As far as I know we did absolutely *nothing* about Firefox’s launch time on Mac OS X in Firefox 1.0.6. And I would know! Clearly the reviewer is just jotting down whimsical thoughts without actaully doing any real testing. Or, he “tested” but is a very unqualified tester.

Also, Macworld includes a screenshot of Firefox with some extensions installed. The caption is:

“Plug Me In, Soup Me Up Installing plug-ins in Firefox and Camino is as easy as downloading them from the Mozilla.org Web site. The plug-ins installed in Firefox are listed at the bottom of the browser window, on the right.”

Uhh… Those are extensions, not plugins, and Camino doesn’t support extensions. Furthermore, Mozilla’s website doesn’t even have any plugins available for Camino (you get them elsewhere). Macworld didn’t even try this in Camino, and they didn’t bother figuring out the difference between plugins and extensions. As for rankings…

First of all, I admit Camino 0.8.4 isn’t too hot (unlike Camino 1.0a1, which is super hot), but to rank it behind Opera? I would have no problem if Opera was better than us, the better the Mac browsers the merrier, but I’m sorry – Opera’s UI is *awful* (terrible, absurd, etc.) and their rendering engine isn’t nearly as full-featured and standards compliant as Camino’s. And the version Macworld reviewed costs $30!!! (a later Opera version is free) I have never heard of a Mac user that actually liked Opera, and people rave about Camino all the time. I have no idea how Macworld came up with such a ranking.

Secondly, Macworld put Firefox 1.0.6 ahead of Safari, which is almost as ridiculous as putting Camino behind Opera. See, I’m not biased towards Mozilla browsers! Safari 2.0 is simply a better browser than Firefox 1.0.6. Its not even close. The story is a little different with Firefox 1.5b1, but that isn’t what they are reviewing.

Those are my two main gripes about their rankings. I don’t expect them to match my rankings, but they were so far off it hurts to read. Between the just plain wrong final verdicts and the really bad statements (I only pointed out problems from the first page), this is some shoddy work, Macworld. Next time can I just write the review for you?

And for the fun of it, here is my personal ranking of browsers if you include Camino 1.0a1, Firefox 1.5b1, Safari 2.0.1, and Opera 8.5 instead of their older versions from Macworld’s review:

My as-of-now verdicts, best to worst:
Camino 1.0a1 – 4.5/5
Firefox 1.5b1 – 4/5
Safari 2.0.1 – 3.5/5
OmniWeb 5.1.1 – 3.4/5
Opera 8.5 – 2/5

The updated versions of Camino and Firefox rock. Safari’s lowering in rank is due to the fact that the much improved Camino and Firefox browsers have upped the bar for browsers on the platform.

Note: I’m not claiming to have “reviewed” these browsers like Macworld does (though I think I’m much more qualified than they are). My rankings and explanations given here are just for your amusement.

With their Ultra 20 Workstation, Sun has built exactly what I look for and until now have never found in a new computer. It’s powered by a 64-bit AMD Opteron processor, starts at less than $1000, and is certified to run Solaris, Linux, and Windows (the latter I don’t care about, but I’d take it as a perk). It also comes with a 3-year warrantee.

The compatability alone is a big deal. I hate dealing with setting up machines, and the fact that the Ultra 20 has been certified on 3 operating systems probably means less setup pain. I highly doubt Dell cares if their sub-$1000 boxes run Linux (not to mention Solaris) well.

If you’re looking for a new computer to run any OS, you should probably check out the Ultra 20 Workstation. Looks like it has convenient out-of-the-box speed and compatability for a great price.

Yes I sound like a Sun marketing droid, but I don’t mind sounding like that if they really have built something cool.

I went to the beach with Alex Polvi and my friends Stuart and Laura. Got some good pictures with Stuart’s fancy camera.

- getting on the Golden Gate Bridge
- Coast
- Alex wading
- Alex, Josh, Laura
- Sand castle
- Creepy hands in the sand
- How we made the creepy hands in the sand
- Josh and Alex wading
- Returning over the Golden Gate bridge

I finally got glasses, and indeed it no longer hurts to work on the computer. I don’t really like wearing the glasses though. Its weird to have this wiry plastic thing on my face all the time, and things look a little different through the lenses even though I’m getting used to them. Oh well. I’ll get used to it. I’m not sick any more, and my eye pain is gone, so I’m back in top shape and that feels great.

I’m a judge for this year’s MacMod Challenge. You can see the submissions in each category by clicking here. Which one do you think should win and why?