Slashdot Mirror
Boston Globe to Blogger — "Stop Using Opera"
PetManimal writes "Mac Daniels of the Boston Globe weighed in on a prickly debate involving the updated local mass transit website. The Globe's advice to one complainer named 'derspatchel': Stop using Opera. Derspatchel's response is to go medieval on Daniels' ass, and ask the question: Why should Opera users give up their browser? Quoting: 'I don't give two whoops about the "percentage of the Internet population" or whatever. I don't care if a website works on someone else's choice of browser; I care if it works or not on my choice of browser. It's a modern browser, it's in active development, and it's free. Once dev stops on the Opera browser and the last version becomes outdated and unable to support newer Web innovations, then I'll "stop using it." How's that, Chuckles?'" After a day the transit authority took the new site offline to "improve performance," reverting to the old version.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
At least 3 other people using Opera 9.0+ comment on the complainer's blog to say they have no problems. Now, that's still no justification or reason for saying "don't use Opera," but I don't think this problem is really with Opera in the first place.
;)
Sorry for the serious comment in an "It's funny. Laugh." story
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
This is pretty old news. I complain that I can't read what you want to deliver to me. You say, well, you should take what I deliver regardless of how I do it. If you can't read it, change what you are reading it with. Huh???? Shouldn't you be trying to reach the masses and not just the folks that are 'tuned into' you?
An ignorant comment did show what the truth is. Not all 'websicles' are created equal and most authors don't really care if you have to change browser, download a plug-in, etc to get the content - but, they are ignorant.
Which browser are you using?
so that's what Slashdot considers "going medieval" on someone? Must not be from the south side of the middle ages then.
Swi
These arguments always piss me off. Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them? So this guy is using Opera. That's nice. He says he doesn't care about anything as unimportant as "percentage of the Internet population" that uses the browser. He has chosen to use it and as such it is his god given right to have all the sites he wants to use support it.
/END RANT
Get a life.
Two sides to this. First, yes if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers.
On the other hand, if your browser isn't worth supporting from a dollars and cents point of view that is your problem, not theirs. If it would cost a business X amount of money to add support for a piece of software and the total amount of cash that will be brought in by new customers because of that software is less than X, it is never going to happen. NEVER.
You see the same thing in the Linux community (and oh god am I going to get modded down/flamed for this), but every time a discussion of Linux adoption comes up and the games laugh someone always says something along the lines of "if only the developers would get their heads on strait and release the games for Linux...". Games don't get released on OS's where it is physically imposable to recoup the cost of development from the install base. Large commercial websites don't support browsers that don't have enough users to pay for it. This base assumption of deserving support is arrogant and counter productive.
To address the inevitable:
Yes, Firefox can be plugged up to do everything Opera does (password fill, voice browsing, mouse gestures, tab thumbnails, comprehensive download management, RSS/etc feeds, two-click privacy management/delete data, on-the-fly presentation modes (change styles, backgrounds, tables, links, images from toolbar in User/Author mode), image gallery jumpthrough, keyboard zoom, and all the rest.
However, Opera provides a standard setup out of the box, on any computer. I can download it and be up and running in seconds, without spending time configuring plugins, and no annoying autoinstalls. It will also look and behave the same on your XP laptop as on my *NIX box, as on your 98 workstation.
And unlike Firefox, Opera will not be using 2GB of swap if you leave it running overnight with Gmail open!
With that in mind, Opera is at the level, or better than Firefox, meaning that it is way better than Internet. Not supporting it is just idiocy.
I'm a fan of the 3/3 rule: If it has less than 3% market share or the version is over three years old, strongly consider what your effort is worth before changing code to support it.
"It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox."
Wrong on both counts. I'd go into detail, but a cure for your ignorance is only 4.7 megabytes away.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I think he said NetPositive.
Stop coding websites like it's 1989. A properly coded website will fallback to HTML 3.2, no javascript, no java, no plugins and even no images. If your website doesn't work with all these disabled, it's not coded correctly. The content should be readable, the navigation usable. Everything else is just supposed to add to the website, not be a requirement for it.
Once you do that (XHTML/CSS, no javascript/java/etc required), you shouldn't care which browser people use.
Except of course almost all the fucking versions of Internet Explorer, for which you have to write custom CSS to patch the incompatible bullshit from Redmond.
Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them?
Why are you bringing "the free software community" into this? Opera isn't free software*, and XP isn't free software, so what does this have to do with the free software community?!
(* Opera is free to download, but it is not Free Software in the sense of the phrase "free software community").
oh my god, a website used the word "ass"! Someone quick call the FCC, we gotta censor this disgusting abuse of free speech! Oh the horrors, that some young mind might be exposed to the word "ass".
And now we return you to your regularly scheduled graphic violence - just make sure no one says a four letter word or shows a titty.
It is real simple answer to why. Opera supports publish standards. Those standards should be supported FIRST.
From a business point of view it is real simple do you want someone to not buy your product?
For Firefox that runs about 10% If you can support them you should.
finally this is a PUBLIC site run by as in run by the government! The government shouldn't require one to use a certain browser without a really good reason.
Unless you are doing a lot of Ajax it isn't hard to support Opera.
The only reason is because you are lazy.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The baby Bells, for the most part, have reached the size I like to call the "fuck the customer" stage; the stage in which the company is large enough that the business will continue to generate enough profit even if they piss off a fifth of their customers, usually because the customers have few alternatives. I'm convinced that once a business gets above a certain size it's very difficult to stop it from getting to this stage.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
1) Some government site changed their webpages
2) Guy A can't load it and assumes he's being blocked because he's using an oddball browser
3) Guy A complains and is told by Guy B to stop using his oddball browser and get over it
4) Guy A goes ballistic on his blog
5) Guys C, D and E respond to Guy A's blog and say "we're using opera and it works fine for us, must be something on your end"
6) Because it's blog drama, one man's fucked-up configuration problems ends up on slashdot
Do I have that right?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
ass
This isn't just any business. It is a government-subsidized organization set up to serve the public interest. They have an obligation to serve all people, not just the majority. If they decided to not allow wheelchairs on their vehicles because only 0.001% of the population uses them, the leaders of that organization would be testifying in front of congress within days.
If the site doesn't work with Opera there is a 99% chance it doesn't work with tools for the visually impaired either. Frankly, any government site should be required to use open, published standards.
Hey Man even Jesus rode an Ass.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
Evidently it has come as a shock to the people involved in this article that the Boston Globe sucks. Oh, yes and the MBTA also sucks. And maybe their web site sucks, or maybe it doesn't. And some lame person responds to another lame person's recommendation that he should stop using the relatively lame browser of his choice.
Where are the technical details? What supposedly broke the browser's rendering of the MBTA's new and "improved" website? I remember when this site actually had technical content in their articles. At least Gizmodo has a cool video of a new dragonfly robot.
I wonder why I don't check this website anymore than once every few days or so. I used to read it all the time when it first started.
This is just one persons opinion, but having to wade through, in my view, naive and lefty political expositions (in many comments) to glean a small bit of technical insight has become increasingly less worthwhile, for me.
Granted there are no moonbat comments in this post, but there isn't much in the way of content either. So, was it just this one guy? Does anyone know, or care?
Quick, lets all email Hiawatha Bray to see what his opinion is regarding the Firefox vs. Internet Explorer dustup. I am dying to hear the Globe set the record straight on this cutting edge discussion as well.
It wouldn't cost anything extra...in fact, it would cost less...for them to use W3C specifications instead of the Microsoft RTML (Retarded Text Mangled Language) that Exploder needs to function. Just tell visitors to use a real web browser.
If they don't want to cater to their customers, stop using their service!
Ever since I started seeing auto ads on the city buses in my region, I've stopped taking the bus (only about a dozen times this year) in favour of cycling. I've saved a lot of money doing it, too! (perhaps to save up for the cars they're advertising? Seriously, the Volvo ads say "Transit for the masses. $199/mo" How is that to encourage people to take the bus?!?)
I've also written to my city councillors and have had a letter printed in the paper on the topic. I also tried helping organize a Bus Rider's Union, but it fizzled.
You, too, can be Grouchy!
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
While I would like web sites to work worth every web browser on the world, for one reason or another it is not going to happen. These days when doing my testing IE and Firefox are the main test-beds and sometimes followed by Safari and Opera. One thing you need to think about is when whether the issue is web-site related and which are browser related. For example, Safari on MacOS X has a number of issues, which the developments team is watching out for. Javascript is usually the main culrpit for web site breakages.
BTW Having not seen the web site with Opera, what was not working?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
But that's not how he got Mary Magdalene pregnant! Hey-ohh!
I've come to basically the same conclusion, and it's sad that you're right, and it's sad that the government, rather than making it difficult to fuck the consumer, actually encourages them to do so.
Care about privacy? Read this!
I'm derspatchel. I took the entries and the pictures out of circulation. I don't need the comments and my admin doesn't need the bandwidth overages. I kept saying the last thing I wanted to do was start a goddamn browser war, but it looks as if I didn't really have any choice in that matter. I kicked a rock and it rolled downhill from there.
My original complaint was written as I was viewing the revamped website, and just couldn't believe the nav problem I had seen. Nearly half a million dollars went into the redesign and it seemed like they'd really goofed. The second complaint was written when Mac Daniel threw a little jab in his writeup on the debacle, while I was sussing out the nav problem with Ron Newman. Is it a coding thing? Is it an OS thing? Is it a configuration thing? Is it an enduser thing? I dunno. Then the MBTA reverted to the previous version so I couldn't play around with it any further. And then my knee-jerk reaction to Mac's knee-jerk reaction just led to more knee-jerk reactions. Okay, I gotta stop typing 'knee-jerk' because it's beginning to look weird.
I stand by my opinion that if a browser is in current development and it's W3C compliant, then it should by all rights be considered a supportable browser and a browser to be supported. That's all. If I had been crying that the MBTA site wasn't viewable on Netscape Navigator 4.0, say, then I could see why there'd be a problem and why the advice to change browsers would come pouring in.
All I wanted was to be able to use the website with a current, up-to-date, standards-compliant web browser. I also said I'd be happy to use another supported browser to view it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to, and it'd be much nicer if I weren't told to.
Opera should be deprecated. It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox. The Internet will be better off if websites permanently ban this Scandinavian piece of shit.
You are an idiot. Opera has been ad free for a LONG time and it does not install any adware. Opera 9 is also faster than Firefox 2, it kicks Firefox's ass quite handily:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
Why should a browser that is still being actively developed and used be deprecated? Please try to post something relevent next time.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Our suggestion? Stop using Opera. Note in the comments section that other Opera users aren't experiencing the same problems.
Their suggestion is a poor attempt at implying the obvious. If other Opera users aren't experiencing the same problem; then maybe you're just too stupid to configure your browser properly, and should use one that comes set up for you. Of course saying that outright is a PR nightmare so they just said switch browsers.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And Mac Daniel points this out himself, which actually makes Mac Daniel look like more of an ass.
Granted, the entire exchange is stupid.
I don't know why I keep coming to this site thinking it may at some time have intelligent discussion. It's probably /. regulars who were hired to build this new site.
Let's think for a moment:
1) The new site is removed because of heavy traffic??? hmmm... that just sounds fishy! I bet it's a couple weeks before the new site is up and running.
2) We need to build a new site to be used by the general public - "I have an idea, let's build it for firefox, After all it is the best browser. F@%ck our log files which say 80%+ use IE."
3) Opera not free (as in free beer). Who cares if it is open source or free to use. It supports standards, something the firefox "fanboys" are always screaming about! Standards, Standards, Standards! (Hey you - Try the blink tag in FF. In FF 2.0 it works great! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_tag )
I wish you guys would actual learn something rather than catch a fragment of what someone says, twist it into your own little story and run wild. At least then you could have some real discussions!
you're a lot better just asking for W3 compliance than "support $my_browser because I use it". If it follows the W3 standard, we can all use it, and if we can't, it's because of our browser. Run the site through http://validator.w3.org/ and send them the URL as well as their list of errors.
This browser-customized TRASH, you find on many websites is the root of the problem. Opera routinely beast other browsers in conformity tests. If defeloppers stopped trying to cater to broken browsers a) the browsers would get fixed and b) testing would get far, far easier. After all, that is what standards are for...
Side note: The 0.6% figure is highly doubtful. Because of broken websites that work fine in Opera, but that refuse to load if they detect anything other than IE or FireFix, many Opera users set their Browser to pretend to be IE. Broken statistics tools cannot see through this.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Hey! You! MustardMan! Hear that? Yup. That was a joke flying over your head.
Seriously, chill.
blah blah blah
In the early days of the web, a website would not work right on my smallish monitor. Higher resolutions were too fuzzy.
:-)
I sent an email to complain, and got back: "Buy a bigger monitor". Republican tech-support, I assume
Table-ized A.I.
Regardless of the validity of the guy's point (and it has some validity), is anyone else struck by how inured we've become to borderline-irrational rants from whiny little bitches?
First of all, how ridiculous is it to get emotionally engaged in some website's browser support policies? They may be stupid, counterproductive, outdated, or arbitrary and inane... but this guy acts like they're some kind of religious dogma and he's from an opposing sect.
Second, whatever happened to voting with one's wallet, or eyeballs in this case? I mean, he acts like they are obligated to make their content available to him, and that their apparent refusal to support his browser somehow impinges on his human rights. What the hell?
Finally, you have to wonder if this guy has ever gotten his way in any dispute. Because no matter how right he might be, he comes across like an 8 year old whose parents won't buy him the vibrating Harry Potter broom.
All of which is unremarkable in itself, but what *is* remarkable to me is that this seems to be par for the course these days. It's like people have lost interest in actually getting what they want (better browser support in this case), and are enjoying masturbatory tirades instead.
-b
And yeah, you can call me kettle, but I'm coming at this from sadness, not anger, so that's got to be worth something.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Some wanker with too much time on his hands snivels because a website won't support his fave browser, and this is news? /. is clearly getting desperate for material....
My question is.. if it doesn't work in Opera then how did it pass Section 508? It is required of any governmental agency or government funded organization.
I don't use Opera, but from what I've heard it's a decent browser that supports standards. I can't be bothered to check out this web page but if it applies standard (w3c) html then Opera *should* display the page well enough to use it. If the page is unusable in a standards compliant browser then it is, yet another, badly designed web page.
A properly marked up web page should work in every standards compliant browser, who cares if the browsers interpretation of the 'box model' or whatever is different, it should still be usable.
I suspect the problem lies in your name-calling. Omit the "idiot" and "asshole" from your posts, and it's easier to see that you are, in fact, right. To your consolation, your post appeared as +2, flamebait to me.
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
I namecall when appropriate. If a person doesn't warrant themself to be called an idiot or asshole then I won't call them that. Either way I stated facts and presented evidence to back it up so I don't deserve the flamebait mod.
As for the +2 that is because I have excellent karma and bonused at +2 originally and then got modded +1 informative before the -1 flamebait mod.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about moderation. Just say what you want and don't worry if, within 90 minutes, your precious karma has been affected.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
That's your choice of course, just be aware that the consequence is that some people may object to your language by modding you flamebait, making you perhaps less effective than you want to be (and since you were posting valid points in defense of Opera, you were also less effective than I wanted you to be).
When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
I'm sure the GP is in similar situation to me. I used it once. The piece of shit changed ALL my image file associations to Opera, and has some other nagware/adware crap. I gave them their chance and they fucked it up. Yes this was a long time ago, but fuck them; they shit on my system once. I will stick with Firefox and Konqueror.
I do say what I want. But I will defend myself if I am modded unfairly. I really don't care about my karma that much but I do care if people mod me down just to protect the image of their precious software such as firefox which based on the facts I presented is not faster than Opera.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Question: is the major browser - IE- supported? - Yes! Fine, then if you are using some minor broser like FF, Opera or Safari - either install major browser (I have IE7 just for these cases), or keep yourself away from that site. It is so simple. Nobody should babycare you.
Man, you are seriously one stone cold and badass hombre on this here IntraWeb. I'd hate to trade anonymous barbs with such a rapier wit as renown (well, virtual) as yours. I'm considering not even surfing the Web anymore, as I am most fearful of running afoul of your swift and cruel justice.
I post what I want and try to be as "real" as possible. If calling someone an idiot for stating untrue facts affects my karma so be it. Either way I am right and Opera is the superior browser for those who don't wish to intall a bunch of add ons and firefox (although slower) is great for those who do.
For the record I used Moz up until I came across the tabbed browsing that Opera had and since then it has given me everything I want and need in one install. I have no bad thoughts against Firefox, if people prefer it that is great and I wish them well with using it, having a choice is great. I do have a problem with people saying that a current, relevant browser (Opera) should be deprecated based on irrelevant reasons. Make your own decision and use what you like but don't try and kill a browser that many people use because of personal choices.
and since you were posting valid points in defense of Opera, you were also less effective than I wanted you to be
No, actually I was 100% as effective as I wanted to be. Opera is the best performing browser available and I proved it. Mod as you wish.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
Unless you are doing a lot of Ajax it isn't hard to support Opera.
The only reason is because you are lazy.
No, not lazy, just stupid. If they were truly lazy, they'd have coded to standards and the site would have worked in most browsers right off with only minor CSS tweaks added for browsers that identify themselves as MSIE. What you have instead is either a case of garden variety stupidity or someone with the Microsoft agenda trying to get over on the public with public money.
That nobody supports ALL the standards and supports them all in the same way. The W3C standards are.... complex would be a nice way to put it I guess. It's not like you just say "Ok I'm gona make me a standards complaint browser this afternoon!" There's a lot to be done, some thing are somewhat contradictory, some things are somewhat ambiguous, and there's always the problem of how to actually make code to render it all efficiently. If it was simple to support 100% of everything with no errors, well then everyone except maybe MS would do it.
Also, even more annoying, it's possible to be 100% compliant and still have things not work. I remember back when I was webmaster for my university's paper we did a redesign. One of the mandates was that it work in essentially every browser. So, as I was designing it, I was checking the code against the W3's validator. It all passed validation and things looked good on IE on my PC, and IE and iCab on the graphic designer's Mac. Then I checked it in Netscape 4.7 (the current version at the time). It was all kinds of broken. It ended up being rather messy to clean up the Netscape problem, not break it in other browsers, and keep it compliant. It was all pretty simple stuff too (tables and such).
His argument could be improved, but he is correct. W3C should be the fallback default for websites, not some IE variant. Too many websites default to IE if they don't recognize the browser id string, and that frells even W3C compliant browsers.
The other thing the bozo in transit forgets is that Opera is one of the most popular microbrowsers built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable devices -- the very customer base that is most likely to need mobile access to information about the transit system.
The whole series of "browser wars" arguments are bull IMNSHO. W3C HTML first, W3C approved standards next (e.g. XHTML, XML documents), vendor-specific variants LAST. If developers would stop working around that godawful mess, Microsoft would be forced to fix IE by a deluge of customer complaints. Our own policy of appeasement in search of market share is what forces the entire web community to keep working around the incompatible platform-specific enhancements, costing the entire planet money.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But I have to agree.
The MBTA site doesn't support standards. The lazy bastards didn't do their jobs.
Some dude had problems with a standards compliant browser.
He was then told "stop using your standards compliant browser" by an idiot who really deserves to be kicked in the balls.
The point is the idiot had nothing valuable at all to contribute. The site is broken, and the idiot was saying "Fuck it if the site is broken, use a browser that will handle the shitty code." The first guy could have come up with that solution all by himself.
The question shouldn't be "does it work with Opera", the question should be "is it standards compliant".
The user should simply send a bug report to both the browser and the site developer. Both developers should then determine whether the problem is with standards compliance of the browser or of the site, and whatever is broken should get fixed. "Don't use Opera" and "every site must work with Opera" are both unreasonable principles.
I've been on the Net from /before/ the URL concepts was introduced, and from when the likes of Spyglass and Mosaic came along it was perfectly normal to have every browser loaded on your system to be sure your site worked with all of them.
I still think that is the best approach. If you stick to standards it tends to work, but I find it ridiculous that everyone considers catering for the FLAWS in a browser like IE a perfectly normal activity. Who's supposed to fix those deficiencies? You or MS?
It's precisely because of this "other lemmings do it" attitude that they get away with bringing out this crap, and repeatedly so. Standards are standards are NOT what Microsoft wants, and if you start taking into account the overhead on web page maintenance that every new bug causes it's clear that the TCO of Windows carries quite a bit more hidden costs than you think..
Welcome to another problem with a monopoly - it gets people to think life with deficiencies is perfectly normal..
Insert
Odd. I've used Opera since about 3.5, and I can't remember that it ever changed image file associations. Adware, yes - they gave you the option of either using adds in the tool bar or paying for it.
I don't think there's even an OPTION to have images open in Opera other than doing it on the OS.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Demanding that gas stations continue to sell regular. Sure, you have the freedom to use whatever browser you like, just like the site designers have the freedom to cater to whichever browser they choose. The fact that this issue even got attention just shows the arrogance level of certain members of the OSS crowd.
End of Line.
I have been an opera fan, nay, fanatic since the 6.x days. I even paid for it, no joke. An integrated mail client plus browser plus rss reader AND it works on Windows and Linux!? These reasons kept me going up until this week, more or less. I realized that for years I've been making excuses and bitching about the way people write webpages (and me a web developer) and generally being irritated at -them- when I am forced to open up IE or Firefox to view a page. This very week, I snapped. It is ridiculous for a page to work in IE and Firefox and not Opera. And it's OPERAS FAULT. I know their excuses. I've used them myself time and time again and it just doesn't fly. As a application user I DON'T CARE. I should be able to go to a website and view it. If I can't then that browser is broken and needs a patch. It was easier to blame MS back in the day sites worked with it but not Mozilla or Opera. These days, I'm not sure I've ever seen something that works in IE only that Firefox can't handle. I've had it up to my eyebrows and as soon as I figure out how which rss reader to use, hopefuly something cross-platform for both Linux and Windows, I'm giving up.
Jesus may love you, but I still think you're an asshole -BVB
https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2007/
:'(
says
Unsupported Browser
AMCAS supports only the following web browsers for Windows:
* Internet Explorer 5.5
* Internet Explorer 6 Get it here
* Netscape 7 Get it here
* Firefox 1.0.2
* Firefox 1.5 Get it here
If you try to use anything else, even firefox 2.0, it won't let you in
I've used Opera for 7 years on a daily basis, so I've come to develop immunity from websites that say they don't work with Opera: If it doesn't work with my browser, then it's not for me. I just close the page and go somewhere else. Really, most of the time it's the webdesigner's fault or lack of knowledge. This also says something about the content of the site. Properly designed sites work with Opera. Ok, there's google calender, which complains that not all features are available with Opera, but all the other sites out there are not google calendar.
If "standard" means "What IE6 does" then how is ANYONE (including MS: see their need for the SAMBA team to help with their SMB client and IE7 not rendering IE6 for examples) to follow that?
A standard cannot be hidden. If it is it isn't a standard.
This is typical of corporate development shops-- they don't have enough sense to develop sites that aren't browser dependent, then blame the user for their stupidity. Nothing new there!
where it is a government institution?
If he isn't getting access to the facilities, can he stop paying taxes? I mean, for a corporation with a badsiet for your marginal browser you go elsewhere and at least don't spend your money there (maybe even go without).
But for some reason governments don't like you deciding not to buy their protection, laws, etc and MAKE YOU PAY. Therefore you should MAKE THEM SERVE YOU.
Get it?
IN5T4LL L1NUX, PR0BL3M S0LVED.
you had me at #!
I don't know the details, but for me the problem is simple:
Market share, not being open-source or having lame name does not define whether browser can handle pages properly or not. Opera, in most cases, perfectly can.
finally this is a PUBLIC site run by as in run by the government! The government shouldn't require one to use a certain browser without a really good reason.
That seems very silly to me. That's like saying parking lots at government buildings should be able to take any kind of vehicle anyone might own, including car, truck, horse and buggy, airplane and spaceship. The government isn't required to support every choice one of its customers might make. This guy chose to be in an extremely small minority, so I say tough shit.
For me, it says:
I suppose they got scared of my creature freakshow User-Agent header. =)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061024 Icewolf (Firefox/2.0 rebrand) Iceweasel/2.0 (Debian-2.0+dfsg-1)
What the hell are those commies terrorists corrupt mind-controlling federal overloads putting in the water in Boston? Seriously guys, chill out.
I've not seen anyone say whether or not they tried to "mask" Opera. I can't now since they have switched back to the old site. While on the offending web site, right click and select "Edit Site Preferences" and at the the bottom of the "Network" tab is the ability to have Opera mask it self as another browser. Every time I have tried this I have found that the offending web site works just fine and the web site developers have blocked Opera out of ignorance.
BTW, Mask is different than "Identify as..." in Opera. If you change the "Identify as.." setting then Opera will give a string that still includes the word "Opera" whereas Mask will not give a clue that you are really running Opera.
The Mask option is a per-site setting.
This has nothing to do with Opera browser. What this has to do with is standards. Get used to it.
A website is either w3 standards built or it is not. If it is not, then the dipwits who were paid to build the site are in some Microsoft seduction zone and are not doing professional, responsible, standards compliant work. It really is that simple. w3 is the standard. The expensive, invasive, and illegal monopoly Microsoft is certainly no standard. So, quit it. NOW.
The real trouble is IE compatibility forces people to figure out how to make things work like ":hover" would if you could use it like "div#myMenuItem:hover {...}", as it doesn't properly implement it. BTW I haven't tried the linked technique, but it looks interesting.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Why the fuck should the website have to cater to every possible browser out there. If you choose to use a specific browser and the provider of the site chooses to not support that browser then you can CHOOSE to use another browser or not use the site. It's that simple... it's always that simple. Why the fuck do these idiots have to try and force other people to cater to their particular choices.
A few years ago I decided to purchase a new car... I tried out a Honda Civic and a Toyota Carolla. I'm over 6 feet tall and the Toyota was just a little too cramped for me. So I bought the Honda... I DID NOT BERATE TOYOTA and demand that they make the care more spacious.
On one of my boxes I run Gentoo for AMD64. Flash support is a pain to setup and use and you can't use the native 64-bit browser. This motherfucker woudl have written YouTube and bitched about how the should support those users without flas and they MUST change their site. Idiot.
We need to quit feeding these trolls and tell them instead to submit a nice request for Opera (or whatever) and then shut the fuck up.
I work as the web master for a non-profit or not-for-profit group (I personally do not know its IRS filing status). One of the requirements written into our web publishing policies is that it must meet W3C accessibility guild lines. By default, this means that it must be reasonably standards compliant. I run into no issues making it work on any browser other then IE.
The thing I find most annoying is that everyone seems to consider writing a standards complaint web page is difficult. It's not unless you are using a WYSIWYG generator, especially FontPage, or your site requires JavaScript to display properly. Both of which are extremely bad practices for professional web sites and make them near impossible to read on hand held devices and screen readers for the blind.
For all of you web developers that have no idea why what I am talking about is such a big deal. As was mentioned in an earlier post, check out the Lynx text-only web browser and view your sites. Please note: Everything you see in the Lynx browser is all your average screen reader for the blind can see! Now, before I get nick-picked. There are better screen readers for the blind out there that can see more but, these programs cost money that blind people often do not have.
So please, don't be a web dork (name a co-worker called "web masters" that knew nothing more then FrontPage/Dreamweaver and didn't even know what an .htaccess file was, much less how to write one). Take the extra time it takes to look over your sites and see what others can really see of your site.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
I guess he's never heard of being polite with a customer, or, "The customer is always right." That MBTA prick should be fired on the spot for saying something so idiotic. People like that belong at Microsoft, not working to benefit the public at large. Take that, Chuckles, and stick it.
Because there is a sizable number of Firefox zealots who take every opportunity to denigrate Opera - this Slashdot discussion as a prime example. You were just in their firing line.
802.16 could open the market even further by offering Internet Access, phone service, television, and even music. If BPL ever matures, that too will become yet another option, that is only if it matures. As time goes on, more options will be available to people. You can see the evidence of this as there are more options today than there were even 15 years ago let alone 30. This will force the different camps to compete with one another. This will help prevent any of them for stabbing their customers in the back. They know that if they do, then they will face a huge backlash. The more it will happen, the more their customers will flee and go to competing camps. That will hurt them no matter how big they are.
1) Some government site changed their webpages
2) Guy A can't load it and assumes he's being blocked because he's using an oddball browser
3) Guy A complains and is told by Guy B to stop using his oddball browser and get over it
4) Guy A goes ballistic on his blog
5) Guys C, D and E respond to Guy A's blog and say "we're using opera and it works fine for us, must be something on your end"
6) Because it's blog drama, one man's fucked-up configuration problems ends up on slashdot
7) ???
8) Profit!
Signature has left the building.
Can we not lose sight of the issue? (Insert obligatory slashdot culture joke here).
Whether or not the site is busted or Opera is busted, while obviously quite relevant, is secondary. What's sticking in this guy's craw is that this Mac Daniel troll didn't even have a clue where the problem was, he just went into his go-get-a-real-browser routine right out of the box.
Believe me, "It's your browser's fault, not ours" is a perfectly valid answer once you can back it up.
Someone points out that just because you code to standard doesn't mean it'll work in all browsers. True. But that's why you code to standards. So when this happens, you take a frigging second to trace down the problem, and if it's because Opera isn't executing the standard properly, you can assert that with confidence and tell them to take it up with the browser dev team.
If everytime someone breaks a standard we just stop coding to it all together, we may as well get rid of standards, becuase someone is always going to break them. At least until we nuke Redmond from space.
But again, I doubt that's even the primary issue here, because I seriously doubt by his tone that Mac Daniels even thought about this. He simply heard Opera and reacted like your standard forum jackhole, and this guy smacked that garbage off the playground. Good for him.
I can understand being annoyed by that. I would be, too. That's not what I've got a stick up my butt about, though. Opera hasn't had ads since version 8. In version 7, they had Google text-ads. In version 6, they had animated .GIFs and they flirted with Flash ads. I can sympathize with annoyance over that. For a week or so, there was an ad coming through Opera that had sound to it. Only... you couldn't turn it off. There was some stupid ad with a guy talking and you had to close and re-open Opera to get it to cycle to another ad. They almost lost me there, but people complained and the company that makes Opera pulled the ad. After that, there were no more audible ads. As far as I'm concerned, the 'adware crap' problem died when 7 came out with their switch to Google's text-ads. But I realize that's still a problem with some people... fine... but 8 came out well over a year ago and had no more ads in it. In other words, it's old news.
Suppose I said "I won't use Linux because it doesn't support USB." There was a time that was true. My annoyance over a bad experience with it, though, was not enough to explain my self-imposed ignorance of the current state of it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
First I've seen of that comment in this discussion.
Niggle: it's not by definition. I.e., the definition of wealthy people does not include reference to their benefitting from the existing government, any more than it includes references to them benefitting from the laws of physics.
It may be accurate to say that wealthy people are currently benefitting from the (US) government as a matter of (unofficial but rampant) *policy*... but policies can be changed.
Really, I'm not anal, the only reason I'm nitpicking is because I don't like casual misuses of language that promote the misconception that nothing can be done about the distribution of wealth.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
FireFox 2.0 has a good builtin RSS reader, but FF2.0 has other problems (so I have heard). I personally perfer Sage: http://sage.mozdev.org/
The thing is, they're not telling him to stop using Opera because they can't access the site - they're telling him to stop using Opera because he doesn't like it at all. If the guy's using Opera all the time and complaining about it, why doesn't he just switch instead of complaining?
You bring up a good point about everybody breaking the standard through partial implementation. The Open Group approach might be a good way to fix this. Nobody has more disdain for the "Open Group" than me. (see my post berating Open Group as a bunch of greedy bastards) But, perhaps if the CSS standard was copyrighted/patented/trademark (royalty-free or nominal cost) such that a browser had to pass a test suite in order to implement it, then the web world might be a more interoperable (and better) place. So, the "Open Group" might have the basically right approach, if they just wouldn't charge exorbitant fees for the certification.
The test suite itself would seem trivial (just a bunch of xhtml pages with css) and be free (gratis). The browser would have to render a series of pages as expected to pass. Once the browser passed, the W3C would license the CSS patent/trademark at a nominal price.
So true. Either these companies really are degrading or we are becoming more aware of how much they suck. It's gotten to the point where if you buy something you have just as good of a chance of it falling apart in your hands as you do of it actually working. If, god forbid, that you do get a defective product you better weigh the cost of replacing or doing without versus waiting on hold for an hour and trying to actually talk to someone in customer support. If you finally do get someone on the phone they have no clue what they are doing. You're not going to talk to an engineer or someone that is actually familiar with the product or service. You get to talk to the least important person in the company above the janitor. The only difference between you and them is that they have a script that tells them what to ask. Even if you know the problem, why it happened and how to fix it you still have to convince them that it's nothing on their list of 500 symptoms. They barely help you, spit some 15 digit confirmation number at you that you will never remember and send you back on your way feeling less helped than before you called. AOL used to be good. I'm talking a long time ago. The days of 2.5 and older. A few billion dollars later they are in the toilet and their customer support acts more like a car salesmen trying to upsell you. Same thing happened to Gateway, then DELL and the list goes on. It's not just customer support, it's the entire experience.
The benefit I think is being talked about is of this sort: poor people go to public school and receive in return an education (benefit for their taxes). What does the wealthy person get from that same service? A ready-made, basically literate and numerate employee base or workforce. Way bigger benefit; after all educating an entire workforce is hideously expensive and a big time investment.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that public education is a major factor that permits employers and factor owners to make fortunes the size that they do. I don't see how rearranging society or changing policies would change this sort of thing across the board. Any social rearrangement radical enough to would eliminate this sort of benefit inequity would, I suspect, eliminate the existence of wealthy people. Hence, it is in fact by definition.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
So when will dojo be fixed to work on Safari? Right ... if you want it fix it yourself.
This is basically a rant. Went to US Airways to purchased tickets for this holiday season and could not finish the transactions, some thing in their order process. Anyway, call support as per instructions on web page. Instructions tell me to call # and finish the transaction. So call:
... [Try to educate.] ...
"The website is not experiencing any problems."
"But the site is giving me this error."
"What browser are you using?"
"Firefox and Linux"
"Our website is best viewed with IE and windows. Do you have access to a windows system?"
"No"
"Do you know anyone with a windows system?"
"No, not really, I'm trying to finish up my order now."
"Well you could go to the library and use a system there."
"Why? I would not place my credit card info on one of those system at all."
"Why? Our web site is encrypted."
"I'm not talking about your web site at this point. The machine problem logs every keystroke."
"What do you mean?"
"Well the only thing you can do is call US Airways reservations. They may not be able to get you the web fare though."
So it is nice to see one site get a clue, but US Airways...
Show us the URL, otherwise you're only trolling the Opera fans.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
I don't care if it's "standards compliant" if it can't render most web pages to look good.
Works fine on the majority of pages for me. You are just a dumbfuck.
I want a browser which is fast, mostly works and is free of charge. Opera has one of these features, after nine major revisions. you shit-knobs who keep apologizing for Opera by deflecting the blame to web developers need to wake up and smell the gingerbread mint hazelnut soy latteccino. your browser sucks fat dick
Hmm, Opera is faster than Firefox, works great, and is free as well. After 9 revisions is has ALL of those features you retard. Have you used the latest version of firefox lately? You would see that is sucks balls compared to Opera as you did.
your browser sucks fat dick and your self-satisfied software advocacy is going to get you laid a week after never.
Well I am glad I have a choice. People who wish to use Firefox should be allowed to use is as well as Opera users. I just wanted to say the guy who posted those comments about opera was COMPLETELY wrong, which he was. I also get laid all the time, I have a girlfriend. Go back to your blow up doll and get back to me when you are less bitter.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
This thing didn't work that well in Firefox either. And there's no need to quote
"improve performance", they really did need to improve it. I happened to hit the
site yesterday for directions and it was dog slow for no improvement in usability
(just aesthetics). Worse, they were using an invalid Google Maps API key from the
test server in production.
Were that I say, pancakes?
"I am surprised you have so many customers that you can do with out those who do not use Internet Explorer.
Good luck to you.
HTML Dog has a great 12 or so line piece of javascript that you can use to allow hover to work in IE6 for things other than a. IE7 implements hover for everything now. The only downside if you plan on using the javascript as written is you need to create a new function for every element type you want to hover. For instance, if you have a menu and some paragraphs you need to offer a hover state for then you need to copy the function and change the element type and element name parameters. If you don't really care about supporting IE then you shouldn't really care aboutmaking these users deal with a javascript file. For those 2 IE users who turn off javascript, the page should degrade nicely though they will have trouble with the menu.
I'm on 110 baud dialup, you insensitive clod!
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
I'm going to second that. Here's why:
1. Company launches an all new webpage.
2. User tries to make this work with his favourite means of accessing the web.
3. SOMETHING is broken (might be either the web code or the browser, but let this rest for a moment.)
4. User reports that he's having a problem.
5. Company representative make unhelpful statements not adressing the problem.
6. User still not happy, makes a blog post.
Now if the user did have some real choice whether to use this company or not, he would probably not bother to complain, since he'd be free to choose any competing offer. Internet's a bit special, since it would make very little sense without standards (just imagine a couple hundred million computers, and NO WAY TO SWAP PORN.. it defies imagination, doesn't it?). Also, try and imagine how fun it be to find the next freeway off-ramp not supporting your vehicle brand. The user is about that dissatisfied, as he feel he's not doing anything wrong, and the followup he gets is not very convincing either.
Websites delivering public services SHOULD have some basic functionality accessible no matter what the means of surfing are. Bells and whistles are nice and all, but once the fallback isn't working, the site excludes some part of the browser bell-curve. The response to the complaint show that somebody really don't want to be bothered, and that they in some respects have a little weak judgement when handlig customers, and none too concerned about being compatible.
And those of you that does not see the problem and couldn't care less; you're probably not responsible for websites of public interest, or you're not doing your job. The rest of you could probably take notice.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: I will stop preferring Opera myself whenever that browser stops being so damn sexy, not whenever some web developers says they can't be bothered making pages that won't suck.)
analog < infinite binary (Heisenberg is with me on this one)
Opera has one feature that totally rocks my socks. When you zoom, not only does it change text size, but it resizes images to match the new text size. Pages with little text are no longer un-readable, and no longer look stupid when you resize the text. This feature is also able to dynamically resize flash applications, so you can look at youtube videos at whatever size you want, and so forth. I switched to Opera this summer for kicks, and now I wouldn't even consider going back to Firefox. When Firefox 2.0 came out, my convictions were solidified. A new version of a software product should always have (at least) one of two things, to make the upgrade justifiable: new features or performance enhancements. Firefox 2.0 does not have dramatically better performance than 1.5, and the new features are seriously meh. X buttons on every tab? That's a damn small increase in usability, compared to, say, the ability to resize flash videos. Yes, I'm an Opera fanboy. I recognize that for some people switching is enough work that I shouldn't preach to them. I don't. Opera is 100% compliant with all W3C standards, so with VERY few exceptions, any problems are with the page, not the browser.
Won't the two just merge eventually?
If it were truly...
Just for your edification.... What's the difference between the following:
1. John knows fuck all about Linux.
2. John doesn't know fuck all about Linux.
3. Mary has done shit all day.
4. Mary hasn't done shit all day.
"care less" is in the same class. The truth values of these sentences do not change from positive to negated contexts. A friend of mine is currently writing a paper I don't agree with her about on whether or not items that cause sentential negation in French are in fact negation or minimizers or another beast entirely "negative polarity items."
So let's not fight about this. They're grammatical.
Plenty of that going on @ slashdot!
I.E.-> Modding posts down that do not 'conform to the pro-linux/pro-unix &/or pro-firefox vs. other browsers as well as anti-microsoft' views here.
In a nutshell? Screw that.
I used to think this site was straight-up & impartial, but found out otherwise: They're as bad as, or worse than, many other websites out there for technical news, & especially if it said viewpoints by posters don't conform to some fool moderator's views of computing.
Why is this +3 insightful? Sure it's interesting but the current discussion is about Opera and (possibly) faulty pages.
You have just received the Amish virus. Since we have no electricity or computers, you are on the honor system.
So what about opera mini? That's what i use when out and about.
I speak from personal experience saying that when you switch to Firefox, the first thing you'll do is try to find extensions to make it more Opera-like. These extensions, like Ad-Block, All-In-One Gestures and Sage, tend to be buggy, and generally don't work after a new version of Firefox gets released. Ad-Block crashed the browser on a lot of Slate.com pages, AIO Gestures had horrible memory leaks that ate up a gig of RAM, and Sage had trouble rendering a bunch of the RSS posts that I had.
I don't know if you used the mouse gestures or RSS reader very much, but those were two things that made me breathe a sigh of relief when I switched back to Opera after a four-year hiatus.
What year was 3.5 released?
It's not about writing special support for that 0.6%. It's about writing something that follows a number of definitions made to actually make it work with 100%. Since they're incapable (or unwilling) to do this, it leaves out not only that 0.6% of opera users, but most probably also a large set of users that use PDAs, Mobiles, Voice Readers, etc. Especially (as has been mentioned before) people that are blind have a hard time no the internet nowadays anyway. Since most webpages are (unfortunately) not following standards, so a VR or a braille reader will have serious problems with that website.
It's very unfortunate that the general idea seems to be 'if it works in IE, even though it needs to be hacked to bits, and not follow standards at all, it's okay!'...
It really isn't that hard to follow the standards. The main problem there however, is that you have to have at least a clue as to what the hell you're doing, and most 'designers' nowadays using dreamweaver/frontpage/whatevercrapthereis, have no clue, and have never learned anything about how to aquire clues either.
Once again: It's a shame, really.
Splut.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
Just because they call it a standard doesn't make it a standard. There is a standard made by some anti-microsoft paper pushers and then there is the real-world standard.
I recently re-wrote the UI for a web application to make it cross-browser compatible. Getting the HTML to work right in all three was simple enough (with IE's conditional comments). I liked how Opera supported lots of IE's non-standardness, which made it much easier to get IE and Opera to look the same. Moz was much more stubborn, wanting everybody to play the way it wanted or it would take its ball and go home.
But once the HTML was done, I started working on the javascript. That's when Opera took a big ol' shit on me. I wasn't able to do any kind of javascript debugging in Opera. And without the support for decorating objects like Moz allows, getting all three platforms to work together without branching logic depending on browser was a royal pain in the ass. The lack of a good javascript debugger in Opera is definitely its biggest shortcoming and put me off it.
I namecall when appropriate.
Then don't whine when others are offended and respond appropriately. You asked a question, "Why did someone mod me flamebait?" and got a valid and correct response. That you don't like the correct answer to your question doesn't mean you should get defensive (as well as being offensive at the same time). Why bother to ask the question if you are unwilling to hear answers? Well, unless you were expecting "mods are stupid" answers. They may be, but that doesn't change the fact that abusive and factually correct posts do get modded down because they are abusive (whether the abuse is called for or not).
So, the question is, will you read this, recognize yourself in it, and acknowledge responsibility for being modded down for being an ass? Or will you blame all problems on some third party and accept no responsibility?
Learn to love Alaska
Ok, after like two days, I got it! Hey MustardMan! That was a joke! I hope you quit hot doggin' it and ketchup with the rest of us. Learn to relish the joke and stop being such a sauerkraut! What, did your girlfriend just write you a dijon letter or something?
--
That's what I meant to say.
blah blah blah