Slashdot Mirror
Most Expensive JavaScript Ever?
ekran writes "A while ago Opera Software needed more servers. Not just a few servers either — they were planning Opera Mini's growth, implementing Opera Link, and My Opera was also growing quickly.
Most of the major hardware vendors grabbed their specs and came back with offers and sample servers shipped all the way to Oslo for testing. One of the biggest vendors, however, did not do their homework. They shipped the server, but when the Opera sysadmins started up the web-admin interface, they were met with a JavaScript statement that managed to piss off the whole company including the CTO. The script, apparently, locked out the Opera web-browser."
I browsed the comments on the Opera blog and I could not find any definitive answer although HP and Dell are mentioned as possible culprits.
So who was the culprit company ??
Now that it is on /., I am sure that a member of the Slashdot intelligence community could come up with the answer. I offer a reward that will be paid in SMP currency, not in NOK. Sorry about that but I do not have any NOK at my disposal.
currencies:
NOK = Norwegian krone
SMP = Slashdot Mod Points
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
A while ago Opera Software needed more servers
I think they still do.
Had the same thing on the webadmin interface for one of their ILO's. Or more precise, it wouldn't work on anything but IE. Hadn't seen that for quite a while.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
I'm quite sure microsoft did it to make them switch to IE...
And if it was outsourced.
it's not HP as the link to what they actually buy shows they bought HP blades (http://www.digi.no/504306/her-kjores-egentlig-opera-mini&bid=6)
my money is going on Dell.
Having tested web based software for IBM before, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess it was IBM. Anyone here ever use SCM (Storage Configuration Manager)? It's utter shite; slow, buggy, and unsupported on anything other than firefox and IE.
Remember kids, IBM Hardware = Good. IBM Software = Kill it with fire.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
if (is.opera)
{
window.location.href="config/error.htm";
}
Conspiracy theorists unite!
Free Martian Whores!
spoof the agent, just like everyone else who uses Opera
if (is.opera) { window.location.href="config/error.htm"; }
And someone sent this on a server for Opera? I marvel at the stupidity of the developer for that niceness, as well as the hardware vendor for not testing their software before shipping.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Heh
Don't be a jackass. Their market share has nothing to do with the article. I don't care about Opera but the story is still funny as hell and worth repeating. I just wish that kind of stuff happened to me at work. :(
I am the lawn!
Not that Opera doesn't have serious funding... but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this javascript would be more expensive, most of the time
.
.
if (is.explorer)
{
window.location.href="config/error.htm";
}
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Or it's just an Opera person posting a humorous story on his fucking blog. Christ.
Why? I can see not bothering to test much on Opera, or putting a "We only support browsers X and Y." statement in the manual, or even not bothering about any issues that crop up if you use Opera to access the admin interface; but why would you deliberately add a check that breaks Opera?
The British cartoonist Giles is said to have made himself practically sacking proof by one of his cartoons. The Duke of Edinburgh remarked that "The [Daily, owned by Beaverbrook] Express is a bloody awful newspaper."
Giles promptly did a cartoon of his employer being led off in chains by Yeoman Warders, watched by the Duke, with the caption
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This nonsense would never happen.
I started as a web developer in the mid-90s. I know how hard it is to develop for multiple browsers and versions. When Netscape and Internet Explorer 4.0 came out, they quickly gained the majority of market share. Many colleagues did not want to keep their sites compatible with 3.x browsers because they felt it was a pain. I would always hear the sentence, "They only have a 5% market share."
To me this was and still is a ridiculous attitude. You're OK randomly raising your middle finger to 1 in 20 potential customers visiting your site? What if that 1 in 20 is the wrong person? Obviously, in this case, they definitely raised their middle finger to the wrong people.
But this gets even worse, because Opera is not obsolete and is fairly standards-compliant. To top it off, the vendor specifically broke the web site for the browser they were too lazy to design for, rather than doing something that makes sense -- like investing time and money to reach a small but tech-savvy segment of the population.
All told -- shamefully -- it makes me feel a little Schadenfreude that it bit them in the rear.
The Institute of Incomplete Research has determined that 9 of out 10
"since they are insignificant in the browser market I'd probably do the same thing. This is a lame piece of news, companies blow larger deals on much sillier situations than this. It's just Opera trying to drum up some users." - by sulfide (1382739) on Tuesday July 21, @08:53AM (#28768555)
Not knocking FireFox/Mozilla really, they do a nice product & I've worked with their teams fixing bugs on various sites etc. et al, but... they're NO OPERA, in terms of performance, memory footprint, speed overall consistently, & security vulnerabilities patching (as well as meeting standards, but, here? FF seems to do more pages 'correctly', but, that's a matter of useragent string as a fix usually (report as IE, hassles go away many times), + webpage devs building MOSTLY around IE &/or FireFox instead)...
Considering Opera's OVERALL faster (when all factors are tested, Opera USUALLY comes out "on top" of the competition, for more speed & efficiency in various tests of browser speed (such as this one -> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html + others such as -> http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ & more (available upon request, just ask, I will put them out))?
It keeps Opera's competition on their toes, so-to-speak - they "steal" ideas from Opera, rampantly, & yes FireFox has surpassed Opera in javascript parsing + processing speeds lately, but, that same "gain" turned up a loss in the next url below (1st one):
AND, that Opera is overall the most secure (i.e.-> consistently bearing less known & unpatched security vulnerabilities, for YEARS now no less, this HAS been the case) than BOTH of its main competitors in FireFox (yes, even v.3.51 lately, has "holes again", per this url from here @ /. no less) -> New Firefox Vulnerability Revealed http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/19/169206/New-Firefox-Vulnerability-Revealed & Microsoft Internet Explorer -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ vs. Opera -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/10615/
That anyone, with ANY SENSE, that is, knows which webbrowser not only performs the best, pound for pound, but also which one keeps you safest online (& has features natively "built-in" that other webbrowsers have to use addons for, or imitate, to achieve the same levels of excellence in 1 package)...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly, considering Opera generally makes passing the "ACID tests" (for browser std.s compliance) a snap usually, & they are usually the first OR amongst the first that pass it? Well... to quote Microsoft? "Where do YOU want to go, today?"... Opera! apk
I've been a Dell user for a long time but I have never used one that shipped with a web interface. But the specs probably called for some pretty special stuff and it may not have been loaded with Windows at all. So I just have to know. Who was it? Was it my Dell? I could sort of believe it if it was Dell... sometimes the people there leave me scratching my head wondering what they were thinking and if they listened to me at all. But my preference for Dell is due in large part to my experience with HP whose support and sales are very unmoving and inflexible. (I am sure others have had different experiences and that's fine, and I believe you too... it's just not my experience. No need to discuss.)
Of the big two, HP and Dell, which one of them is "more beholden" to Microsoft? It's hard for me to tell since I have Dell leanings and haven't dealt with HP for a few years. Both offer Linux on servers. Both offer Linux on desktops and laptops. Both are pretty beholden to Microsoft and have to walk lightly when it comes to offending them. I really haven't a clue who it could be...
The headline is misinformative. Based upon the headline I would have expected to read about a company hiring a bunch of developers for a lot of money to code something cool in javascript. Perhaps a more appropriate headline is "Javascript locked out Opera, Opera locked out the company."
Tying up a loose end so you don't have to test for compatibility?
You mad
since they are insignificant in the browser market I'd probably do the same thing.
Then you're a fucking moron.
If you were running a store with a physical presence, would you also ban customers who drove Toyotas, telling them "Toyota is insignificant, and therefore you are not allowed to shop at my store. Come back when you have a Ford or GM"?
Classic case of a company not knowing what their product is used for.
Opera != Work Browser.
Opera == Bestest P0rn Browser ! Swift image resizing, superior mouse gestures, and remaining responsive even after a gazillion tabs are opened.
It's like turning up with your purpose-built race car at the city center, and whining about speed humps.
If you were running a store with a physical presence, would you also ban customers who drove Toyotas, telling them "Toyota is insignificant, and therefore you are not allowed to shop at my store. Come back when you have a Ford or GM"?
If your store sells parts for Ford or GM vehicles but doesn't carry any for Toyota, and a Toyota needs special parking provisions, such a policy might appear reasonable at first glance.
currencies:
NOK = Norwegian krone
SMP = Slashdot Mod Points
The uncyclopedia will explain:
Free Martian Whores!
http://www.digi.no/504306/her-kjores-egentlig-opera-mini&bid=5
Notice anything odd about the large 48v DC power cables? Like the '+' and '-'... on the wrong lines...
Forget a javascript issue, that there is a pretty huge installation issue.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Actually, he has a very valid point. In your Toyota example, you are forgetting that in order to support Toyota, you have increased development costs and time in order to support a very, very small percentage of users, compounded by the fact that supported browsers are free and can be installed in a matter of minutes.
If I'm working on a project with a limited budget and you were going to tell me that enabling support for Opera was going to add even 5% to my total costs, I'd cut it in a heartbeat, because anyone that is using Opera can just switch over to another browser to perform the task at hand*.
The exception to this rule is my wife's office, which mandates Opera use... but it's only because they manage classical musicians and they like the name... it causes them all kinds of problems.
I've already found a defect in the revised sniffer. The variable names "fire" and "moz" appear to indicate that the code above this line would fail on Iceweasel, IceCat, SeaMonkey post-renaming, Fennec, K-Meleon, Epiphany, and other browsers using the same HTML/CSS/JavaScript engine as Firefox. Why is it testing for "fire" and "moz", not "gecko"? Having an alert() pop-up on (I'm guessing) every page is an improvement against immediate redirection to an error page, but it's still an annoyance.
Toyota has the #1 marketshare in the world at something like 15-18%. That's akin to Firefox in terms of share (20-something percent). Opera is lucky if they have 1% of the browser market. It's more like saying Ashok Leyland doen't have a sizable marketshare, therefore we're excluding them from the market.
I'm not sure who to feel Schadenfreude towards. The company that sold a server with pre-installed web-admin software that locked out the company's own browser, or the Web browser company that needs their servers to be pre-installed with web-admin software...
Remember kids, IBM Hardware = Good.
Is Lenovo hardware good too? Do you think IBM choose a good buyer for its PC division?
IBM Software = Kill it with fire.
Would this include IBM BIOS, IBM BASIC, and IBM OS/2?
But it's worse than that. The unnamed company specifically sent these test servers to Opera. I can sorta understand a bone-headed company deciding it would not bother supporting a minority browser like Opera... but it is then silly to bid on a contract with that minority player, and it takes colossal idiocy to ship a server that doesn't even work with that company's software.
You don't have to test at all if no one buys your software. That's how you really tie up loose ends.
OK, let's assume that you would want to rent out parking space to a local shop. It might make sense to ban brand X cars, if they would require extra wide and long spaces. But if you really want to sell your parking spaces to a brand X car shop, this strategy would be full of fail.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor some international shadow government like the UN has any business trampling on states' rights.
So the bit in the Constitution that says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" should be removed, then?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's kinda funny, but it also shows the ignorance of some people who used to (and maybe still do) think there is only one web browser out there and it's IE. Good thing times are changing!
Well, at least the installer was consistent. But yeah, ouch!
This guy's the limit!
can only guess on wheter the colors or the labeling is wrong
So that you never get users attempting to use an unsupported browser, and subsequently gaining a bad opinion of your software when it fails to run smoothly.
Not that I'm condoning any company refusing to support one of the major standards-compliant browsers - but if they're going to, this is probably the safest way to do it.
Many years ago, we were bidding on a US Postal Service contract to supply computer equipment to all of their offices. We had several pallets of bid material on the loading dock, ready to go. Fortunately, one of the program managers made a last minute check and discovered (in time!) that nobody had bothered to tell the shipping department to ignore the standard, "Ship all contract proposals FedEx, overnight", procedure in this case.....
Yes, if said laws or treaties trample on the very specifically enumerated limited powers of the federal government. Any power not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution belongs to the states. I'm afraid you are confused. The founders' clear intent was that the federal government be an agent of the states, not the reverse situation in which we find ourselves today.
Actually, he has a very valid point. In your Toyota example, you are forgetting that in order to support Toyota, you have increased development costs and time in order to support a very, very small percentage of users, compounded by the fact that supported browsers are free and can be installed in a matter of minutes.
If you hire a good developer your site should work for all browsers. It's not fucking rocket science.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Maybe that's why the page is in this weird language...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The exception to this rule is my wife's office, which mandates Opera use... but it's only because they manage classical musicians and they like the name... it causes them all kinds of problems.
Dumbest reason to use a certain piece of software. ever!
Is it possible that the admin interface in question uses oncontextmenu? Opera is the only browser that doesn't support it and a lot of browser based interfaces use it.
Google for "opera oncontextmenu" for more information.
48V DC is an odd beast, with odd standards going back to the early days of the Bell System.
In a 48V DC system, the positive side is grounded. This is to prevent corrosion on phone lines in the ground that happens more readily if the system is negative ground.
Since positive is ground, the "live" wire is negative, or -48VDC. Since this is the wire you don't want to lick, or allow to touch the chassis when powered, it is colored red in many deployments. The black wire is ground, you can lick* it all you want.
* -48V DC won't really sting you much if you just touch it unless your hands are wet or you touch it with a wet part of you like your tongue.
HP's not much better though:
// supported browser; do nothing
var detect = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();
var ie = detect.match(/msie ([\d\.]+)/);
var moz = detect.match(/rv:([\d\.]+)/);
var fire = detect.match(/firefox\/([\d\.]+)/);
if(
( ie!=null && ie[1] >= "6.0" ) ||
( fire!=null && fire[1] >= "1.0.2" ) ||
( moz!=null && moz[1] >= "1.6" )
) {
} else {
alert( "Integrated Lights-Out 2 supports Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 or greater, Firefox version 1.0.2 or greater, and Mozilla version 1.6 or greater. Some functionality may not work and pages may not format correctly on other browser platforms. This browser platform reports it is \""+navigator.userAgent+"\""); }
Of course that's just a warning, not just dumping them to the error page. It IS annoying that we do such stupid browser detection tricks instead of coding to standards. In an ideal world that statement would be something like:
If browser.supports(HTML4) do {} else alert ( "upgrade to a modern browser" );
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Kind of funny... people who believe in evolution are trying to prevent it from happening.
[Old versions of popular browsers] "only have a 5% market share."
To me this was and still is a ridiculous attitude. You're OK randomly raising your middle finger to 1 in 20 potential customers visiting your site?
They probably did a business decision that people in the last 5 percent to upgrade their web browsers buy less. You see, older browser versions tend to run better on obsolete PCs, and people who don't replace an obsolete PC are probably misers: people who stretch their dollar so far that they are less likely to demand your luxury product. Case in point: PCs running IE 6 or Firefox 2 are likely to be at least eight years old.
But no one driving a Toyota would need spare parts anyway - especially not from Ford or GM...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
... who was expecting this to involve the new recovery.gov?
Thanks for that, now I feel kinda like an idiot. At least I am now a smarter idiot than I was half an hour ago.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Actually, those pictures are old. That they had HPs before making the purchase doesn't mean that they chose them again.
You are assuming WAY too much. Some subcontractor wrote software to a specification that said support browsers x and y with functionality a,b,c,..q and pass these tests. To make sure some clever tester didn't find some obscure bug with Opera that would keep him from getting paid he just errored the browser out. This passed functionality testing and was approved. Later this now approved and standard code was delivered with the imbedded management card of a server that just happened to be shipped to Opera. The two events have nothing to do with each other and it unbelievably unlikely that for an account the size of Opera that someone would have done regression testing on their software to make sure it works with Opera's product.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Wow, so this proves someone actually does use Opera!
Ah yes, Dell Remote Access Controllers have a shitty as hell web interface that only seems to work in IE. I think it's supposed to work in firefox but it never has for me.
Photos.
It is common to deliberately add a check that breaks the whole stuff when some 'unexpected' condition happens. You know, assertions.
Which one is better? Not working at all, or seems like working but a not-so-commonly-used-some-sort-of-admin-command somehow gets screwed and the web browser fires a do-not-touch-this-unless-you-want-complete-meltdown-command because there was some minor difference on the javscript engine parsing some parameters? Yeah, can be extremely rare, but if it isn't tested, nobody can be sure.
Obviously, the best thing to do would be to test all possible conditions. However, if you can't, then there can be three choices:
1) Leave it to the users, Nah, I'm not gonna test it.
2) Launch a big warning message and blame the users if something goes wrong, or
3) Make it never work when some unknown condition is reached.
Number 1 is perfectly reasonable when the worst consequence isn't so bad. For example, a web forum interface, or things like Facebook. Maybe number 2 would be better in most cases. But, if an untested scenario may cause huge, irrecoverable damage, number 3 may be the best choice. (You should remember that the product in question was the server management console, which can bring the whole datacenter down when things go wrong.)
My opinion is that, deliberately excluding Opera was a quite reasonable idea. Trying to sell a product that deliberately excludes Opera (web browser) to Opera (the company) was the stupid idea.
you're being too simplistic... we don't know the context of the blocking of Opera. I'm sure every programmer out there would want to support it, but if you're 998 hours into a project and you have just discovered that the coding needed to make Opera work with the software is going to take at least another 25 hours, you do what this guy did... I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when you're trying to hit a deadline, you sometimes have to take shortcuts. From a business standpoint, it was probably the right thing to do, even though the coder hated having to do it. The team that built the software probably didn't even know the server was going to Opera anyway
Again, we don't have all the information, so there is no way to tell. While it's not rocket science, there are more factors involved than just the code.
Sorry, I tried to convey sarcasm via text. Once again, it failed.
You mad
Weird language, that would explain a lot of /.
Which is why most sensible car manufacturers make cars which fit within a reasonable spec, and those manufacturers who don't make cars for people who don't use parking spaces, and more than likely don't even drive themselves. You make your product compatible with the lowest common denominator, or you lose on a large proprtion of the market. Why do you think there's so much more driver, software, and hardware support for Microsoft in general?
Picture VW Polo next to Rolls Royce Phantom. Polo will fit nicely out the front of your local 7-11 / Tesco store; Good luck getting the Phantom in anything smaller than the Disabled spaces.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
In general, not supporting a 5% market segment because it would cost too much development effort may be a reasonable decision.
In this case, the real WTF was submitting the product in a bid for the vendor of said 5% market segment. And simply throwing an error if Opera is detected. That's like opening a business in a black neighborhood and putting up a sign that says "Niggers not allowed" ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
Mod me DOOOOOOWN I didn't read the comment properly.
Apologies!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You are assuming WAY too much. Some subcontractor wrote software to a specification that said
Exactly correct, your post is right on.
Of course, nobody at Opera bothered to find and fix the problems that prevented the sub-contractor from supporting it in the first place.
While I do find this quite hilariously ironic, I find it even more ironic that Opera's incompatibilities came back to bite... Opera itself.
It was Dell.
Dumbest reason ever? I agree. However, on the flip side...
How often do some FOSS advocates set out to prove that they have marketing savvy by pointing to the dumb, weird names of FOSS apps as a barrier to adoption by "normal" organizations?
We can't have it both ways. The name of a piece of software either does or does not influence people. I think it's clear that it does and if some office, somewhere made Opera the standard for that reason, then such an outcome should not be unexpected. Rare, perhaps, but not unexpected.
Please... there's nothing wrong with NOT investing time / money which you will never see back. Sending a server like that directly to Opera when trying to win a bid is stupid... but for the most part that 1 in 20 is inconsequential.
I never understood the reasoning behind not just warning the user once and continuing.
I once played a game that had a check for processor speed using GHz and flat out refused to play on a fast processor running at a lower GHz.
I've also had software that was written for Windows 2000 and requires SP4. I expect it will start working properly in XP once XP SP4 is released because they were too stupid to check the OS version properly.
Trolls are so obvious lately. Back then they were more green and weren't that fat. Sigh...
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
But the Constitution was subsequently amended to include a Bill of Rights, reserving to the people and the states those powers not explicitly delegated to the national government.
Why would it do that in the first place? It's not a desktop application. It's a damn web page and is not some Google maps wannabe.
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
Especially as Ford and GM need many more spare parts than Toyota anyway?
Sorry, couldn't resist
Of course, nobody at Opera bothered to find and fix the problems that prevented the sub-contractor from supporting it in the first place.
Which isn't to say that such a bug actually exists. It's entirely possible that someone put the test in on the basis of hearsay or stupidity or laziness.
While I do find this quite hilariously ironic, I find it even more ironic that Opera's incompatibilities came back to bite... Opera itself.
It irritated them, but it's the vendor of the hardware that it's biting: they've lost the contract.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
It's not even humorous, just makes him look like a dick
They block "unsupported" browsers not because they might not work, but because they might cause damage. Dell (or whoever this is) doesn't want to be sued because some incompatibility with Opera caused a "delete" button to be erroneously clicked, resulting in thousands in damages.
So, at the end of the day... blame the lawyers.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Back in the 90s I was a field engineer for a three letter storage array manufacturer based in Hopkinton, MA. One of our sales guys had verbal agreement from UPS to purchase quite a few of our disk arrays instead of our competition, HDS. If I recall correctly, the deal was about $2million. Anyhow, all that needed to be done was to have the paperwork/contracts signed. So the salesguy told his administrative assistant to overnight the contracts to the customer for signing.
We lost the contract because the assistant FedEx'd them to UPS.
One 48VDC install I saw used blue for the ungrounded 'live' wire, seemed like a good idea since it forced an inexperienced tech to measure
(b)If deploying a system like this, IEC says the positive wire should be BLUE and the negative should be GREY. If the wires are completely isolated (i.e. neither is grounded or connected to PE) the positive wire should be BROWN. In the US (Opera isn't in the US) the wiring convention is WHITE for the return and BLACK for the negative wire. Just DON'T ever use red and black and reverse their normal functions. 48V can make very impressive arcs.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Someone sent them shitty US cables, since they're european they figured black is really just dark grey so lets use the black cables as grey. That leaves the red cables to use as brown.
And hope that is an IEC guy ever sees it he is colour blind.
anyone that is using Opera can just switch over to another browser to perform the task at hand*.
Except Opera has a significant exclusive presence on appliances. For instance, I don't know of any other web browser that can be installed on a Wii or Nintendo DS system without a jailbreak, and there are plenty of phones for which Opera Mini or Opera Mobile is the best web browser. Or was this your * ?
You've nicely explained how the mistake may have happened. But I don't see how that excuses it. If you're shipping a server to a company, you should do some cursory tests to make sure it will work with that company's software.
In particular, if you're shipping a server to a company that makes web-browsers, you should make sure it, you know, works with their web browser.
This is not a matter of "doing the right thing"... this is a matter of "if you're bidding on a contract, and you actually want a chance of winning said bid, you should do some checks to make sure it will work in your prospective client's environment." To be lazy and skip any such checks is, frankly, stupid.
I'd mod you "-1, Annoying as hell typing syntax".
I know some Toyota owners who would beg to differ about not needing spare parts.
hmmm they have a firefox plugin which works fine with 32 bit ubuntu..... I think you might need the java5 plugin as well. I do use my Ubuntu laptop to connect to our DRACs.
Though to be fair, if you're the kind of person who a) ows a Rolls Royce Phantom (or a Bugatti Veyron, or a Mercedes-MacLaren F1, or...) and b) shops at 7-11, you probably qualify for the Disabled spaces... Mentally.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
You're missing one obvious factor. There are a lot of great browsers written using pre-existing code. Omniweb is a great Mac browser that uses Webkit for HTML, and Spidermonkey for Javascript. The behavior of that javascript is known, but browser detection routines for every minor browser made of major software is ridiculous. You write based on standards, and test in a few major browsers. #2 is the only option. NEVER BLOCK A USER.
As Opera has been complaint to most standards for years, while it took other browsers years to do the same, it is the websites that have the incompatibilities, not Opera.
Driving your nice little environment degrading Toyota Prius to Germany and finding out they have trimmed all branches of trees so that only VW, BMW, Merc and Audi can pass through without being scratched would probably upset you just as much as your statement would to any Opera supporters. And you would not be blaming Toyota, you'd be blaming the German government. Why does the word rationale mean something completely different when it's about IT?
Also, afidel's post is far from "right-on", as he/she/it too makes at least two assumptions (while debunking someone elses!): Opera being an insignificant browser; you're forgetting all mobile devices here. And Opera's request being insignificant. Judging from what's Opera's requirements are, I'm assuming (see, there's one!) they're ready to order some very serious amounts of high-end server stuff.
You mean like Harley Davidson used to do (and still sometimes does)? Try riding up to the store on a Honda and see if anyone will even talk to you.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I doubt Opera is buying enough servers to matter. They show a few racks of blade enclosures, big whoop. The expense of having someone QA all of the software on the server to make sure it works with the customers software would wipe out any profit from the sale. And let's say that they DID do the tests and found the problems, what then? Are you really going to redevelop and retest the software for an entire server line just to win a small contract? I very highly doubt it. If opera were big enough to keep a factory busy for a couple shifts it might be a different story, but the fact is they are small fish and the costs associated with winning the contract would never work out. I have much more problem with the general state of things in the industry that led to the problem then I do with the lack of testing on the part of the vendor.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I don't think they would have minded so much if it reported politely that it doesn't work with Opera, rather than just dumping unceremoniously to an error screen without any indication why. It would make people assume that Opera was itself the problem, when in fact in this case there is no real error.
Then you're an idiot and I'll make sure you don't get hired at any place where I'm trying to make money.
They're insignificant? Ok, let's assume you're right. What that means, is that you don't spend time and money to try to gain extra sales to Opera users, because the expense won't be counter-balanced by increased revenue.
But what you suggest, is that it makes sense to spend time and money to prevent sales to Opera users. You are saying that the Opera revenue is not just small, but negative, such that it makes sense to hire someone to add code to the web page to make sure that Opera sales don't happen.
I just realized: you work for the MPAA, don't you?
... dominate the web development arena, anyway. BHC computers (big hardware company), like so many others of their size, try to maximize profit by doing things such as hiring the cheapest people. So they get HTML, CSS, and even Javascript, that is not standards compliant and bases its functionality on the specific behavior of specific browsers. Developers that are in the browser specific mode are then further restricted to at most one or two browsers to "support".
I've seen well done web pages, even ones that don't waste space by fixing the size to a subset of the screen, done in ways that look great and consistent across Explorer, Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, and Safari. So it can be done right. The question is whether there is the management willpower to achieve it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Actually, now that you said that, I don't know how I thought it was serious. *whoosh*
We DO know the context; it's a flippin' webadmin site! How hard can it be to write it in proper HTML/CSS/whatever?!
Chances are 90% of it was stolen from Open Source PHP stuff anyway.
Anything else is just beyond their ken. Rendering engine? Gecko? KHTML? What the hell are those?
KHTML? When work bought you an iPhone, that's where the WebKit in the iPhone originally came from.
They were demo servers for trying out. Of course they should come with everything ready to go.
Opera has about 2.5% market share currently. I'd say they'd have to be very unlucky to go back to 1%.
The exception to this rule is my wife's office, which mandates Opera use... but it's only because they manage classical musicians and they like the name... it causes them all kinds of problems.
Are you fucking kidding me?
... and it worked. It displays just fine. Are they trying to make their competitors look good or something?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If you hire a good developer your site should work for all browsers. It's not fucking rocket science.
more to the point, try doing less 'fancy schmancy stuff' and you'll find that simple web forms and UI's work JUST FINE with all browsers. even lynx.
I am not a fulltime web devel (I write software, not web pages) but I have been able to get some web sites up and running that use the form/cgi paradigm and they work across ALL browsers. what's not to work?
oh, you want flash and blinking and 'as you type' stuff that happens?
go elsewhere, then. go write some stupid windows program if you want to 'act that way'.
but that crap does not belong on serious web apps. 'web masters' (what a joke..) have ruined the web with all the blink/fancy crap they try to pull off.
the web was designed so that you would NOT have to check (!) what browser you are sending data to.
why the hell SHOULD a server-side program care how you render data? you've done your job, you tagged paragraphs as paragraphs, lists as lists, images as images. you did what html was designed to do!
just annoys the hell out of me that the web was NOT designed for 'making remote word processors'. it just was never meant for such things. we have twisted this nice interoperable (key term that has lost its meaning, sadly) web into some overly complex beast that 'needs' to know how you render data. or worse, wants to TAKE PART in the font sizing, spacing, colors and so on. what a huge mistake; and its already too late to fix the web at this point; too many idiots are trying to make web programming just another bloated GUI.
in a way, I wish we didn't have such fat pipes or such fast processors. maybe then we'd see a return to sanity and some level of minimalism. that's what web UI's were *supposed* to be. tag the elements and stay the hell away from FORMATING.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Some of their ethernet switches block non-IE browsers as well. I forget which is which, but I think the PowerConnect 6000s warn about the browser but let you through, and the 5000s just refuse to let you in when running firefox on linux.
My experience is from a few years ago and perhaps they have fixed their firmware since then, I know I filed a complaint.
Don't be a jackass. Their market share has nothing to do with the article. I don't care about Opera but the story is still funny as hell and worth repeating. I just wish that kind of stuff happened to me at work. :(
Well, all you have to do is write bad code that pisses your boss off. Then you'd have a story!
The device we are currently releasing deliberately checks for and disables MSIE.
The reason is the code uses live embedded SVG visualization of the process which MSIE is simply not capable of.
There are no easy and simple alternatives (don't get me started on Flash), and the visualization part is an essential part of the user interface, with various modules clickable to change their state in real time. Also, the SVG files can be directly used as images in the documentation, being 100% valid pictures of projects of whatever the device is to drive. It is not intended for a wide audience and we can mandate the customers to use certain tools (you need training and certification to be allowed to access it at all).
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Please don't describe code that does browser checking as "standard code".
I meant standard for that vendor, IE the approved code load for the onboard admin processor.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I've run it on windows in FF and had issues as well, even with Java installed. Of course some of my DRACs are fairly old, but even the DRAC5s have been problematic for me. Maybe I need to update the firmware, an operation which, surprise, doesn't work right on ubuntu (Dell really only supports RHEL and their firmware upgrades sometimes refuse to work on ubuntu).
Photos.
Common sense is something individual human beings have (at least potentially). Large corporations are lumbering beasts that aren't governed by such rules.
Dell DRAC 4 and up controllers work fine with firefox provided you set the console to use Java in the Remote Console -> Configuration screen. Most of the DRAC firmwares dont have a native console plugin that works with firefox though I have found a few variations that do. Your best bet is just to use the .jnlp version with Java Webstart.
--X
Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
What needs to be clarified here is what kind of treaties does the government have the power to make? Congress cannot enter into a treaty that would expand its (or someone else's) power over the States. Of course, that hasn't stopped them in a long time.
You really, REALLY don't want to know why some places mandate the GIMP as a graphics editor.
.sig withheld by request
"If you hire a good developer your site should work for all browsers. It's not fucking rocket science."
It's not for most modern browsers, but I'm pretty sure I could have put a rocket in orbit with all the time I've wasted supporting IE6 and it's "creative" standards compliance.
How's the guy who posted it look like a dick? I think it's funny. "We're going to sell equipment to the company we purposefully blocked."
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Way ahead of you, my friend!
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
The article implies that this event was some time ago now (they mention Opera Mini growth, and Opera link launching, which puts it between 2006/2007), but that they were predicting huge growth; presumably back when Opera Mini was still in its infancy. The article also mentions "millions of NOK" which is *at the very least* hundreds of thousands of dollars. Opera Mini usage has been growing at a phenominal rate (data usage has also trebled since the last point on that chart) and I doubt very much that Opera is a small contract even when this event occured but it definitly isn't now. Especially with Opera Turbo, and to a lesser extent Unite also needing server farms.
Remember that company almost certainly hasn't lost just one contract as a result as this, they've probably lost several more contracts since then too.
Any tech company that sells to another tech company without at least a cursory look at what they make is deserving of bankruptcy. If they looked, they'd have noticed that it's a browser company. You'd think they'd have fired one up to at least *check* if there's any glaring issues to be pointed out. I'm sure if they'd said "Oh, by the way, using your browser there's X issue" they wouldn't have been immediately tossed to the side.
And considering the amount of expansion they just did (Opera link, Opera Unite, MyOpera, Opera Turbo, etc) it probably was a significant purchase. More, it likely would have been a continuing contract, as in Opera would continue to go back to that vendor, to maintain consistency when they needed more servers.So they didn't just throw away money now, they threw away future money as well.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
If you won't name names its not news.
See my other post on this thread.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
What's the current SMP/NOK exchange rate?
The same as the current SMP/ATD (Alterian Dollar) exchange rate. The problem here is the Vogons mod everything down except their own poetry.
Reply to That ||
If you have to point & click to administer your network / device / whatever, you have no place as an administrator. CLI rocks. ;)
perhaps because he thinks that a major hardware manufacturer is going to give a stuff about about losing a tiny bit of business to his insignificant little browser company
"You kids get off my lawn!" Seriously, dude, we could have even fewer weird rendering problems if we just went back to mailing each other documents on paper, like God intended. But here in the real world, we don't want "minimalism". We want more, better functionality out of our systems. Right now, the web might not be "designed for making remote word processors"... but it should be. I get a lot out of Google Docs, for example. The answer isn't to retreat back to the days when you couldn't do anything with the web but display static text... it's to get browsers and websites to be compliant. And in an era when there is considerable competition among browsers, I think we're making progress toward that goal.
I work for HP. The iLO team wants web pages that work right, look good, and load quickly for the majority of their customers. They're not interested in standards compliance as an end onto itself, or in crusades to get people to "upgrade to a modern browser". As long as IE 6 is widely used in corporate environments, iLO must continue to target it.
Sounds like something Dell would do. Like the time they sent a Cadillac limo to pick up the Ford CTO or the time they use Airbourne to deliver the contract to UPS.
Please re-read your own post and then rethink your opening sentence.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Which is all and well. But, the company should know as a part of their functionality testing that Opera wasn't supported/tested for before shipping the fucking server to them. It's like shipping a car with the steering wheel on the left to England or Japan - nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't intend to sell it in those countries. You end up looking stupid.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
True story:
When I was in college, I was hooking up my modem in the dorm so we could play Warcraft against each other.
I had both hands full, so I stuck the end of the phone line in my mouth for a second. Someone called me, and I learned why you don't have to plug a phone in for it to ring when someone calls...
You'd think they'd have fired one up to at least *check* if there's any glaring issues to be pointed out.
No chance of that my friend. Sales is not about making sure the product works right. Sales is getting money for the product.
In this particular case, the vendor is probably sells at low prices compared to others. (Dell, I'm looking at you) How they get those low prices is cutting corners. That means nasty details like this can bite you in the rear.
I've previously worked Dell shops and now work an HP shop. I don't ever want to go back to another Dell shop. Ever.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You know, I used to feel very strongly this way. But there really is something to web applications. Consider Google Maps. Yeah, there's a desktop version, Google Earth, that has cooler-looking graphics, but for most practical navigation uses the Maps UI is better. It can easily hyperlink to the rest of the web, a completely new layout can be sent down with each page, and updates can be made (transit directions, multiple driving directions options, countless optimizations and minor fixes) without running some obnoxious updater binary.
And then there are things like mapmyrun.com. Great website, but I'm not sure I'd want their software on my native machine. Slashdot: a blog with an advanced commenting system (slashcode is big enough that they could probably define a protocol for delivering comments and allow desktop apps to handle display and posting in their own way, but the number of casual users they'd lose by requiring a desktop app download would be enormous).
Them damn kids on my lawn probably think I'm old-fashioned for wanting to keep my word-processing and e-mail off the web, but web apps aren't as completely useless as you claim.
In your Toyota example, you are forgetting that in order to support Toyota, you have increased development costs and time in order to support a very, very small percentage of users
Sorry, but what!??!!?!
Are you seriously trying to tell me that when I go shopping for groceries, that the business owner has any extra work to do to "support" the brand of vehicle I drive up in?
What color is the sky in your world?
If I'm working on a project with a limited budget and you were going to tell me that enabling support for Opera was going to add even 5% to my total costs, I'd cut it in a heartbea
Then you are the exact type of person that should not be building websites. See, the whole thing is code to fucking standards, and then you don't have "enable support" for anything.
Stupid practice.
The reason for standards isn't to keep companies like Microsoft in check, though it has that result, and that is good for the marketplace. Standards are supposed to reduce costs. In this particular example, the way your iLO team *should* do the job is to first check for html compliance, then check for IE6 - as the largest-share noncompliant browser, then check for any other non-compliant browsers you can't afford to ignore. At that point, you have 3 ways to branch in your code - compliant, IE6, and unsupported.
The software industry is pretty nearly hopelessly fouled up, because of the lack of clear and properly used standards. A large part of this is Microsoft's fault, though not all, by any means. Unfortunately, rather than software getting better, other industries are getting worse. Customer lock-in is an addictive drug, and in the long term is probably as wise, even from a business sense.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If [...] a Toyota needs special parking provisions, such a policy might appear reasonable at first glance.
That's pretty much the point - they don't. Care to respond with something that's actually useful here?
+1 cute
Hold my beer and watch this!
I should have just gone with "It is tying up a loose end in the same way that cutting of a leg is a treatment for an ingrown toenail"
You mad
Browsers for mobile devices are the fastest growing segment of that "market" and Opera is doing quite well there. And a lot of people jump through hoops to replace whatever crappy browser came with their mobile device with opera mini now, just because it works. And that is one of the main points of the article as well about why they needed more servers..
I've seen Opera do some funny things with some RIA's I've written, the same code works on webkit, trident, and gecko with no problems, but Opera does some funny things. My code is probably wrong(it's a hack job on some badly designed pre-existing code, not a clean rewrite), but nevertheless it works fine on everything else.
Seeing that I basically have 3 options.
Any of these three options can be correct, depending on the needs of the business and the severity of the problem. In all reality, no matter how big this guy thinks there server order was, it was probably only a drop in the bucket overall, and in all reality no one was fired and nothing really happened, they lost a sale. They lost it on something stupid, but it's only one sale no matter how big it is(and it likely wasn't really all that big).
Opera is not infallible, they've come up with a few fairly innovative design ideas, but they've always been crippled to a certain extent by ideology. Part of why Opera was and is so fast, and so light is that it is basically incredibly anal about exactly correct HTML syntax. In theory this is a good idea, but in practice it means that Opera has been plagued by pages which don't render correctly for it's entire lifespan. A lot of the web is sort of kludged together because the standards defining how to do things properly are always 2-3 years behind what people are actually doing, a lot of WYSIWYG editors spit out bad code, hand coders make mistakes. All these things happen, and Opera has never been even the remotest bit forgiving(oddly enough firefox is by far the most forgiving, substantially more so than IE) of any of it, which is one of the prime reasons IMO why it never really gets much market penetration despite generally speaking having most of the innovative web ideas before the competition. The fact that until fairly recently it was ad driven or cost money, isn't open source, and doesn't come installed on anyone's PC are of course others. There's really no need to switch to another browser which results in more broken pages, isn't free as in speech, and until very recently wasn't even free as in beer, no mater how innovative it is.
That doesn't surprise me. It seems like everything HP makes is defective.
Browser detection is almost always the wrong way to do things anyway. Test for existence of specific JavaScript properties/methods on objects to find out if they exist. You can generally check for IE-specific behavior just by testing for the presence or absence of JavaScript properties/methods.
if (document.getElementsByClassName) {
/* IE and old browser version */
elts = document.getElementsByClassName("resulttablerow");
} else {
}
By doing this, you won't have to do a browser check at all and your page will "just work" for any browser that implements either the standards-compliant behavior, the IE behavior, or both. You can do the same thing for CSS properties by trying to add the property, then going and trying to read it back for verification. If it isn't there when you go back and check for it, the browser doesn't support the CSS property.
I'm not familiar with Opera's behavior, but in my experience, roughly 99.5% of CSS and JavaScript that works with FireFox also works with Safari and vice versa (as long as you don't try to use bleeding edge HTML5 or CSS3 features). Any browser check that only tests for FireFox is almost always just guaranteed to make a bunch of users mad for no reason.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Early cars and farm machinery used to do that for the same reasons too- to control corrosion especially in salt water environments. Of course they were primarily 6 and 12 volt system with a few occasional 24 and 48 volt implementations. But the principles were primarily the same.
I just wish that kind of stuff happened to me at work. :(
Looking for a job?
I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
This is exactly why I've shied away from doing any extensive JavaScript programming. Indeed, anytime I have to create websites, the most annoying thing is to get it to look good in all the major browsers, with IE being the greatest pain in the ass.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Does this really work? For the given example, does "if (document.gelElementsByClassName)" really mean that it will work the way you expect, for any and every implementation? That's the other part of standards - there's following the standard, and then there's "following the standard", which aren't necessarily interoperable... like Kerberos and a certain unnamed implementation.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You forgot the "now get off my lawn" part.
Years ago, Opera claimed standards compliance when their browser was the most broken piece of shit available.
If the web interface was written in the version 5/6 era, it would have made perfect sense exclude Opera because even basic DOM manipulation was lacking.
The Self Destruct button is your argument? Please. Websites work and break with all kinds of browsers and versions, and nobody is confused by this. Suggesting that disaster will happen because of a javascript/markup error is disingenuous. People may not be able to accomplish a task, but that's the web. Besides, if its really so sensitive and fickle and important, then make your own client (desktop, html or otherwise).
This has nothing to do with web standards. The alert message says it's not _supported_ on other browsers. Here "supported" means "someone has actually tested it on every supported version, if it something doesn't work, call us". If anything breaks and you call support, they can't say "that's a bug in your browser". If it is a browser bug they have to work around it.
fortune favors the lucky
Except the Cadillac doesn't specifically forbid Ford executives from riding in it, nor does Airborne refuse to deliver to UPS clients.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
So much wrong - I don't even know where to start.
Stuff happening "as you type" is extremely useful in some circumstances. Excluding that functionality because it might not work is a terrible idea. Updates to small portions of the page instead of waiting for a page reload is a good way to make the site work better and faster.
you don't need a windows program to make it "act that way". You just need proper feature testing and graceful fallback. Unfortunately, that takes a while to test. If a browser has one feature but not another, and another browser is backwards, you could have some strange results depending on the order of feature checking.
Flash can add a lot to the usability as well, again if you have a graceful fallback. And again, different browsers or even different add-ons can change the experience. You can have NoScript blocking both scripts and Flash, or just one or the other. You don't want the website to be 100% flash with no other options - that's just stupid. I don't spend any more time on those sites. It's not the "web masters" creating this problem - it's the people who write requirements for the site (or work with the web dev). They want it to work a certain way, and pay enough to get that done - but not for additional execution paths like graceful fallback.
The web was designed to transfer data. It was not designed to make all data render on all clients. Ideally, every client should support the same feature set. But there are a lot of optional "MAY" or "SHOULD" items just in HTML, making it a vastly different experience even if written 100% to the standard. In an ideal world you'd write it once. But we all know that software has bugs, and we have to be aware that other people's bugs make us as web masters look bad.
A server-side program SHOULD care how you render data, because it can make the difference between an amateurish site and one that looks like a real business. People are more likely to spend time on a site that looks like someone took time with it, as opposed to a fly-by-night operation shoved up in a few hours.
the web was not meant for a lot of things, but it is easy to add simple features which make browsing a lot easier, more intuitive, and entertaining. Images weren't even intended in the original development efforts, but I think you would agree they can help. Especially on commercial sites. Things evolve, and it's stupid to ignore these things just because they weren't intended.
You seem to be advocating zero fonts, zero colors, zero images, zero layout - even I, who browses with scripts off and no flash plugin and uses "ImgLikeOpera" so I can quickly disable/enable images, realize that there are benefits to using all of the enhancements available.
I agree that the web should be browsable with Lynx, but I also think it should be browsable with all the extras, if they add functionality or increase ease of use.
You asked for it, ladeees and gentlemen! It may not be that grand masterpiece, Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning, but I think this little joy from Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz should be enough to warm your hearts:
Oh freddled gruntbuggly, ...[drowned out by moaning and screaming]
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits
On a lurgid bee
That mordiously hath bitled out
Its earted jurtles
Into a rancid festering
Now the jurpling slayjid agrocrustles
Are slurping hagrilly up the axlegrurts
And living glupules frart and slipulate
Like jowling meated liverslime
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me
With crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
See if I don't.
Cheers!
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Like it or not, each release of IE sets a standard in that it specifies a series of technical requirements for interoperability which can empirically be demonstrated to have been met or not. The right to make and promulgate standards is not exclusive to standards-making bodies.
My preference is for the W3 standard and the IE standard and the Mozilla standard and the Opera standard and the WebKit etc. for parsing HTML to converge onto at least one standard which is adopted by everybody, which is happening, but to call something which meets the technical and operational definitions to be a standard, something less than a standard, demonstrates ignorance or contempt, or a desire for a world in which some browsers are more equal than others.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
you're being too simplistic... we don't know the context of the blocking of Opera. I'm sure every programmer out there would want to support it, but if you're 998 hours into a project and you have just discovered that the coding needed to make Opera work with the software is going to take at least another 25 hours, you do what this guy did...
In my experience, this does indeed happen - but only if you develop for Gecko-based browsers. Then you will also find errors with Webkit and KHTML and god knows what else... Finally you'll be just like all those thousands of sites out there: "use IE or Firefox or fuck off". Sadly, we didn't get that far from an IE-only web. This is just a superset, which is - in a way - worse than the original situation. As mentioned already in the comments here, even other Gecko-based browsers sometimes fail because some morons sniff the UA string improperly.
Anyway, it is *extremely* rare to develop for Opera (and IE) and have your site messed-up in other browsers. I have no idea why, but that's what happens when I do my work. Occasionally there'll be a tiny little glitch to fix for Gecko/Webkit, but that's it.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
So you taste test a live wire?
Glad to know I am not alone.
Ooh shiny!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's not fucking rocket science. Yes it is. Many years ago, I implemented an embedded web server with custom slider controls in Javascript. Try as I may, I could not get the sliders to render the same in IE and Netscape. (Yes, I know, should have done a conditional and used completely different code for each browser. Ever hear of "deadlines"?) So I eventually had to give up and just make it work with IE. Hopefully the situation has improved by then, but the main problem is that the most popular browsers out there are not standards compliant. Get back to me when Firefox and IE pass the ACid3 Browser Test, 'cause right now they both fail. (IE fails quite spectacularly.) Opera, on the other hand, supposedly passes with flying colors.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Wrong country. Norway is Sweden's richer cousin. The Pirate Bay is in Sweden, where the currency is "krona" not "krone" (crown).
That's a very naive example, since it ignores the part of web programming that is genuinely problematic cross-browser. The majority of javascript programming, for example, is extremely simplistic, and for that sort of thing a good developer should get it working in every major browser. But when you move onto more complex cases, things aren't so easy. For example, the major three browsers all allocate memory differently when dealing with tables with very large numbers of dynamically-altered rows; I discovered this building a search application that loaded result sets as the user scrolls down. Firefox handles it nicely, for the most part. IE 7 has trouble freeing memory when destroying rows, and you have to code around it or the memory usage explodes and render speed plummets. IE6 is even worse; my theory is that it draws every single blank row in the table on page load, even though none of them are onscreen, meaning that if you have a lot of blank rows the browser can become unusably slow. Opera can be the worst of all; when changing table rows its stack can be exhausted, causing the browser to lock up. My point is that when the project gets more complicated, the differences in how the browsers handle things start to stack up. Something that makes no difference for a small site becomes a sticking point when you have thousands of items on the page. At this point, if Opera only represents a tiny proportion of your target demographic it might not be worth the hours to get it working.
Cisco routers and switches do this as well although they at least let you continue anyways.
D-Link does one better.
Not only does the DES-1228 (cheap web-managed switch) web interface not function properly with Firefox 3.0 (e.g. the VLAN settings), the switch will outright crash (i.e. stop switching traffic, even after a reboot) if configured using FF3.0 instead of, say, FF1.5 (which works fine).
We even ended up sending one back for a warranty replacement when it stopped working after one reset too many (thankfully the warranty service program is good).
As Opera has been complaint to most standards for years, while it took other browsers years to do the same, it is the websites that have the incompatibilities, not Opera.
Not always true. Opera has bugs and non-compliances like any other browser. Sometimes they are critical to what you are trying to do.
I have personal experience of tha (a few years ago) - a site designed to be standards compliant, worked in IE and Mozilla, failed in Opera. Turned out to be an Opera javascript issue (bug or non-compliance, take your pick). Working around it would have meant writing a good chunk of javascript code just for Opera - no budget to do that.
Actually there was no budget to even test Opera, I just did that as I was hoping it would "just work" on nice, new, standard input. It didn't, so support for Opera ended there.
For the major browsers, if things don't work you end up having to code round it, for the minor players there are very few people that have the budget and/or time to do that.
The web-based mgt interface on my PowerConnect 3024 gives FF no problems. (On any OS platform in the house: CENTOS, Kubuntu, or MS Windows.)
Dell must have broken it after that point.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The US is composed of 50 distinct states, plus a few territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, etc.
The EU is composed of 27 distinct countries, but, just like the US, they share the same currency, and have free trade between member states/nations.
The US and the EU are more alike than you think, at least in economic terms.
Maybe you're the blithering idiot, for automatically assuming people with a different point-of-view are idiots.
This is the perfect example of narrowmindedness that can be very costly in business and destructive in politics.
It occurs when people make judgements from their own experience and fail to count in that people who live in a different culture/subculture are affected by that judgement.
Opera has a 0.5% marketshare in the US, while it has a 25% market share in Russia. If you are working for a multinational company or a company selling to many different target groups, you have to research such things instead of relying on your gut instinct.
The same is even more true in politics as politicians are supposed to make decisions for a whole country that has lots of subcultures. I know it is popular to talk down on politicians and say that most of them are corrupt greedy bastards. But many of the decisions they make aren't just because they are corrupt per se (*), but because the subculture from which they get their ideas come has corrupt group thinking. And people have a tendency to fail to look beyond their own subculture too closely.
(*) Of course you can find really corrupt people also. I am just trying to point out that it isn't that simple most of the times.
No, that's correct. Black indicates ground, and red indicates power (which is -48V). This is a -48V system, so it's backwards from what you're used to looking at.
Nice rant. I suppose you walked to school, barefoot, in the snow, up hill, both ways, and liked it too?
The CGI paradigm is seriously limited in a number of ways some of which require fatter pipes than more modern techniques. (Think AJAX). The biggest limitation to old-style cgi is it is slow and often requires many clicks to do a task that might require less with a more modern approach. In all you can write applications that offer more information, are speedier, easier to use, and take less time/clicks on the part of the end user with the modern techniques you hate.
If you were running a store with a physical presence, would you also ban customers who drove Toyotas, telling them "Toyota is insignificant, and therefore you are not allowed to shop at my store. Come back when you have a Ford or GM"?
If would cost more to accommodate Toyota customers than the revenue they would bring in, then yes.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Except the Cadillac doesn't specifically forbid Ford executives from riding in it, nor does Airborne refuse to deliver to UPS clients.
Mod: Insightful :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
BTW:
- Web Master: equivalent to server admins, he takes care of the web server, language runtime, framework, database and any other software needed, their configuration, maintenance and upgrade (some businesses have a separate guy for the database though).
- Web Developer: equivalent to normal developers, he writes the logic behind the web page, how it interacts with the other servers and writes the code that does the "actual work", so to speak.
- Web Designer: equivalent to normal designers, he takes the information the developer's code puts for him, and makes it look 'nicer' for the end-user.
Us amateurs often end up being all three at the same time, but they're *quite* distinct and your anger should be directed only to the incompetents amongst the latter.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
This story is also notable because this could be a study of expressed vs revealed preferences in which the subject has unintentionally exposed that part of their decision-making regarding corporate expenditures is highly based on emotional rather than rational criteria.
The mature thing to have done would have been to call up the vendor to ask if they knew that their widget did not meet spec, and to ask if the oversight could be trivially rectified. Presumably (because the summary omits this detail), Opera Software had included compatibility with the Opera browser if it was a legitimate operating requirement, otherwise one or more of the following are likely to be true: 1) The person who wrote Opera Software's requirements did a shoddy incomplete job; 2) The person unpacking the test system was not sufficiently trained to realize that distracting people all the way up to the CTO for several minutes over a non-management issue would destroy several hundred dollars in company value; 3) Everyone in between the person unpacking the test system also thought it was worthwhile to the company to escalate the issue; 4) The company's procurement policies provide sufficient wiggle room for purchasers to make personal choices as opposed to choices best for the company or the shareholders.
Given the healthy appetite for standards in this community, I'm surprised that Opera Software is not being called on not fully specifying its full requirements, or on having C-level rage as part of its try catch throw routine, neither of which is good standard practice.
In short, the guy looks like a dick because he's gloating (perhaps unknowingly) about his company's inadequacies as pointed out above.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
But since they are insignificant in the browser market
Opera is only insignificant in U.S. and Asia. It's much more noticeable in Europe in general, and very prominent in Eastern Europe and especially in ex-USSR / CIS countries, topping at about 40% there (and yes, it does overtake Firefox there). Which is still a fairly large market - you might not care about it, but for a lot of companies, it would be silly to ignore it.
The device we are currently releasing deliberately checks for and disables MSIE.
The reason is the code uses live embedded SVG visualization of the process which MSIE is simply not capable of.
Er, what if I have an SVG plugin installed in IE?
If the existing (Adobe) one doesn't work, what if someone writes a new, working one tomorrow?
Don't block users. Give a warning if you must, but let me override it and proceed at my own risk.
This may come as a shock to you, but when Mozilla orders servers, they don't write the OS themselves.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
TFA links to a photo tour of Opera's in-house data center, which Google can translate pretty well for some extra information:
Translated photo gallery: http://72.14.213.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.digi.no/504306/her-kjores-egentlig-opera-mini%26bid%3D3&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhi9EJIJDyjFQXWO9b78y47p_hBSaQ
You're right, small companies and organizations are insignificant. Something as pitiful as the Mozilla foundation or the FSF, not even to mention the insignificant likes of GNU, pale in comparison to the might of Microsoft. Yeah, it's all about big, big corporations, the bigger the better right? Right?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Unlike the US, only some of the member states of the EU use the common currency.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
If there are several known incompatibilities in the management interface which have the effect of producing misleading outputs, letting the browser through would require that specific checks be put in place around each part of the app which could be misleading. For instance, clicking a submit button on a form will usually cause the current page to change in location (if we follow the HTML spec, a form action is required), but intervening Javascript, CSS, and other fun stuff may or may not cause the page to change in appearance in a reliable way if there are browser incompatibilities. If an incompatible browser is let through, would returning a generic page after submitting a significant action such as "backup this" mean that the action has succeeded or failed, and could the user of the incompatible browser rely on that always to be the case? Would the user know (how) to look for secondary verification in the interface that their use of the slightly broken interface produced the desired results, and would they be able to trust that the indicator panel is updating correctly?
Who would be liable (or in the wrong) if the user makes a costly decision based on a UI that's wrong because one browser doesn't deal with the app's data in the intended manner, when the app vendor said specifically not to use that browser? (If we do not like click-through licenses/contracts, we also should not like click-through disclaimers of liability in case of incompatible browser use.)
For both infrastructure vendors and users, "GTFO" can be much more appropriate than "watch for landmines" when a series of incompatibilities is likely to cause a data loss or an unplanned workflow discontinuity event, especially if the trouble indicators are subtle. There maybe other cases with less at stake (such as things which are not core business operations infrastructure) in which a higher risk of loss or discontinuity are acceptable, in which case "watch for landmines" is a sufficient warning.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Sorry, if you're 998 hours into a project before you start testing things with various platforms, you've already hosed the project up. Testing happens from the beginning. Like Clairvoyant says, there's no excuse. It's not about context, it's about execution. I've developed several extremely large Javascript/CSS-based applications that work just fine in any browser because I actually bothered to continue testing them as the project was moving forward, instead of waiting until I was out of hours to start testing. That's simply the sign of a lazy, incompetent developer.
Again, like Clairvoyant said, it's not fucking rocket science.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's true; they haven't all adopted it, yet. It's probably coming, though. There's clear economic benefits to sharing a common currency, rather than having a lot of different competing ones. But also, there's huge economic benefits just from having free trade (with no customs, tariffs, etc.) between member countries. This is one of the things that made the USA so successful historically.
Remember, when the USA was started back in the late 1700s, the Federal government's only roles were to provide for a common defense for the states, a common currency, and deal with any conflicts between the states. Back then, the States (formerly colonies) were much more like separate countries, but they recognized that having free trade, common currency, and some unity provided by the Constitution, plus a common military, would make them altogether much stronger than them all being separate. It wasn't until later (like 1851, and especially not until WWII) that the Federal government became much more powerful and part of individuals' lives. The EU, to me, resembles the early USA in many ways. IMO, I hope they don't screw it up the way the USA did by allowing the Federal government to become too powerful, and attempting to homogenize the union too much. Things are really better when more decisions are kept at lower levels, and member states can maintain their unique identities instead of just being historical artifacts. Wouldn't it suck if traveling as a tourist to southern Italy seemed almost exactly the same as visiting northern Germany or France? They're all nice, interesting places in their own ways, but in different ways. If they were all the same, it'd be like visiting Anytown, USA where Wal-Mart is the main shopping attraction. What's the point in visiting there?
yes, the concept does really work. Check for the presence of a method or property, otherwise fallback to something for non-compliant browsers. I do it all the time. Generally, its check for the method or property, otherwise alert with an error telling them their browser has issues. I will say, however, that I do DOM scripting that alters the document itself and Asynchronous JS calls to power it all the time. I seldom run into real browser issue. Might be because I do not have to support IE6, per se, just a recent version of IE, like 7 or 8, which are much better.
You're right, small companies and organizations are insignificant. Something as pitiful as the Mozilla foundation or the FSF, not even to mention the insignificant likes of GNU, pale in comparison to the might of Microsoft. Yeah, it's all about big, big corporations, the bigger the better right? Right?
Hah, you are comparing Opera with Mozilla? Mozilla is a non-profit organization that still managed to take in $77M in revenue with a 20%+ web browser market share. Opera is a for-profit corporation which made 1/2 that revenue (mostly in licensing its browser to anemic "smart" phones) and has a 2-3% market share.
So yes, from the point of view of a supplier who really only cares about how much of their hardware a company will buy, bigger IS better.
Aren't dead bodies also a unit of volumn?
As in "my car has a huge trunk. It would hold 6 bodies"
"UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED"
Screenshot & Archive backup, for posterities' sake, you understand, lol... must REALLY be pi$$ing my detractors amongst us all here, right off!
(One for the recordbooks, thank you to those who up modded my initial posting to a +4 INFORMATIVE, up from -1 Troll (done, by the TRUE trolls around here)... yea, my favorite troll who's been down modding my posts must have run out of mod points with which to down moderate with via his alternate logon sock puppet accounts... lmao!)
APK
P.S.=> Onwards & Upwards - "NEXT!" ...apk
Well, if they developed the interface using non-standard JavaScript events that are only supported as extras by some browser makers, they deserve what they get.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Assertions are for catching internal errors in software, such as API mismatch between modules. Assertions are not for catching and reporting user errors or other unexpected user behavior.
(Or at least, if you do use something as unfriendly as assertions for dealing with user error, good luck selling your product.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Just like old cars. ( pre 1955 non GM , pre 1970s English mostly) all had positive ground.
Who came up with the idea of negative ground anyway? It is somewhere between nonsensical and stupid. No not Ben Franklin, I'll bet it was Edison.
All those school children being taught that current goes one way and the electrons go the other way. That's if they are lucky, usually they just get taught it wrong.
Of course that's just a warning, not just dumping them to the error page. It IS annoying that we do such stupid browser detection tricks instead of coding to standards.
I really do wish it were that easy. Unfortunately the guys in sales always bitch when something does not look perfect in all crummy versions of IE you dig up back to 6 at least. Then marketing bitch that it looks crummy on their MAC. Ultimately however much you try to avoid it, you are almost always forced in some godawful hack.
Even if IE8 was the most standards compliant browser (I think its not bad) on the planet we are still going to have to do this until every corporate browser in the world has been forced to upgrade from IE6. Microsoft are never going to do this though as it will piss off people who do not understand what a crummy browser it is to develop web sites for.
I dont read
Yet if the web had strictly stayed "the way it was meant to be", it wouldn't be as widely used and we wouldn't have witnessed this online revolution. It can still be progress, even if it wasn't "meant" to be that way.
We're sorry - we are over capacity - try again in a month.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Then use a library like jQuery or Mootools. The overhead is low (30-50kb) and the gains in speed, cross-browser support and extra functionality (jQuery's CSS3 selectors in IE!) is enormous.
Even if you're a veteran who knows how to code your way around all the different inconsistencies, it's so much nicer to let a library handle that and focus on what you really need to get done.
You'll eventually run into something or even find that the library maybe working against you in some way. But I want to say that 99% of the time it'll save you time and headaches.
If you can't mod them join them.
I like this part:
"I write software, not web pages"
Hmm, so developers who build web applications aren't writing software, they're writing "web pages"? The last time I checked, this is 2009 and not 1996: being a web developer is not about churning out static HTML documents. Further, if you're trying to make a hardcore / pussy developer distinction you'd better be a kernel hacker or write compilers or some shit. If it turns out you write iphone apps or some thick client .NET bullshit, I'll be very disappointed.
whenever they try and get a new computer the websites don't work in their web browser.
The pages about entry-level PCs on a web site like Dell.com or Lenovo.com would hit a different demographic. In this case, marketing would tell the web programmer to make sure the pages advertising "high end 3 years ago, entry level today" PCs work on older web browsers, so that customers don't go to a competitor like eMachines. Not only are they selling to late upgraders at home, but they're also trying to catch people buying their first home computer using the computer at work or a terminal in the public library. But then, major PC makers can still fall back on phone sales.
Less sarcastically, assuming there is a correlation between "runs new web browser" and "buys my product" is not the same as having actual data (and I've never seen anyone with actual data make this kind of decision).
But if your analytics software gave you the landing frequencies and conversion rates per browser version, wouldn't you want to optimize the site for the user agents that best improve profit or goodwill?
I don't know who the fuck hired the morons who decided to implement timed-out sessions with fucking HTTP authentication when they could just have used a form+cookies like everybody else, but he deserves a long, slow, painful and debilitating death. Basically, when you click "Log off," you can't log back in any more until you quit and restart the browser. How usable!
That, and their LDAP auth is broken, and has been known broken for a couple years, and they don't seem to be bothered to fix it any time soon. Basically it only works if there's only one group in the directory. I guess that got covered by their shitty test plan. Seeing how the interface is brain dead, it's quite likely that the underlying code is a steaming pile of crap and anyone but the mental patient who wrote the first version would jump out the window in horror after looking at it.
It mostly works. It's possible, but not likely, that IE's version of getElementsByClassName does something differently than Firefox's version, but the odds are if they implemented it at all, it's correct.
There are lots of places where a check like this won't help you at all, though. For example, try to figure out which mouse button is pressed when an event occurs-- IE and Firefox/DOM use different methods: http://www.quirksmode.org/js/events_properties.html#button
Now here comes the place where I get modded down for trolling: the IE way of doing things frequently, in fact almost always, makes a hell of a lot more sense than the W3C way. Examples:
1) The existence of "document.readyState" allows a Javascript to know if the document is ready for DOM manipulation even if the Javascript was injected into the page after the ONLOAD event already fired (for example, a Javascript which can either be included in the page or as a bookmarklet.) There's no way to do this using the standards.
2) The IE property name "innerText" makes a hell of a lot more sense than "textContent", since "innerHTML" is already in the standards. "innerHTML" should match "innerText", or "textContent" should match "HTMLContent". The standards make no sense here. Given, IE should implement "textContent" (and in fact I think IE8 does), but FF should also implement "innerText".
3) The above-mentioned mouse button handling code. In Firefox and other standards compliant browsers, there's no way to tell if two buttons were pressed simultaneously. Additionally, there's no (reliable) way for the browser to communicate that no button was pressed at all when the event occurred. The standards on this are retarded.
4) The way IE handles events makes it possible to include static event handlers (i.e. event handlers hard-coded into the HTML) and still receive an event object. As far as I can work out, there's no standards-compliant way to do this.
Comment of the year
As the guy who invented it, more than 10 years ago, I'd say this is:
<script>alert(document.cookie)</script>
Otherwise known as the cross-site-scripting proof-of-concept. Top vulnerability on the intartubes for way too many years.
Sigh, because 'looking good and loading quickly' is best acheved with SIMPLE html pages. Which gives standards complance.
"As long as IE 6 is widely used in corporate environments, iLO must continue to target it."
Not quite right. Support, yes. But target? No. If there's standard HTML way of doing something that works fine in IE6 and there's also an IE6 specific way of doing said something, for goodness sake, use the standard HTML version! Besides, thankfully, IE6 does not exist on Vista or Windows 7 so days are numbered..
Fantastic! I nominate yours for a Slashdot Achievement (which if they don't have then they certainly *should* have!)
Most Tortured Car Analogy of the Year ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try Seamonkey around version 1.09 - install plugin as root if necessary. works for me, don't use the java version either. I did this on CentOS 4.3
However, the system most liable to disruption by electric current is in fact the heart. Years ago I was designing a system which had to protect users of a piece of test equipment against an accidental current pulse. I worked with an expert in the UK Health and Safety executive, and he told me that a current of a mere 2.5mA is enough to induce fibrillation in some people. In fact, there is no lower safe limit and in sensitive individuals it can be much less. Get a current of 5mA through your chest and you have a significant chance of dying if there is no intervention.
In the end we fitted our system with a very sensitive earth leakage detector which could divert the current in under 500 microseconds as soon as it reached 1mA. But we still had to include a warning.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Lack of using standards is as much the fault of the IT people who choose products and technologies as the vendors who sell them. The number of times that IT staff either don't consider whether the product uses standards - or worse they intentionally choose proprietary solutions because they like the vendor - exceeds the imagination. It's as much a demand problem as a supply. In this instance, the potential customer was the vendor who was being locked out so it kind of bit the manufacturer on the ass.
If you have the SVG plugin, you support whole-page SVG images, not SVG embedded in a page.
If somebody writes a new half-working SVG support for MSIE, and then one of the users uses it, and it doesn't work right, for example changing state of a part while displaying the result state wrong (say, color of "OK" instead of "Fault"), human lives will be put in danger.
This is not a device that must work always and for everyone, but it's a device that must safely switch off in case of failure - fail gracefully and shut down to a safe state. Erroneous activity is not an option and we can't depend on unknown future versions which may or may not work correctly. We are sure to provide updates for future versions of Firefox and Opera, and -maybe- (cost, hassle) if Microsoft releases MSIE with fault-free SVG support, we will support it too. For now -current- MSIE is unsupported and hard-disabled because it could mean danger. If someone tricks the app into running with MSIE, they will be responsible for any resulting damage.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Make sure you ban Firefox too. 3 minutes in greasemonkey and your little porn thumbnail gallery site is leeched completely.
Ahhhh... how this brings me back;
Endless, negotiations, technical discussions, proof-of-concepts and adaptations to a customer that (in the end) totally failed to see the value that was delivered to them.
What mr. Steen so gloriously neglects to include in his little story, is that the Opera team was put in direct contact with the sub-contractor, to let implement the changes that would enable Opera (amongst others) as an alternative for remote management access.
The remote access module ran an old fw, that had little support for anything else than IE. You can't really blame the subc., because back when the fw was made; Opera was nothing but a start-up. Anyways; Opera's people now had the opportunity to help develop full Opera-support for the new fw which would be pushed forward into production.
What he also "forgets", is that the decision had *nothing* to do with tech specs, or any kind of browser support (or not), but it was a (weighing my words)... "financial agreement" directly between the vendor of a major hw-component in the servers, and Opera that tipped the scales in the direction it went. Funny, when you see what kind of lawsuits that sort of thing could bring...
Thirdly, when the said vendor totally failed to deliver a functional product, the whole situation became even more bizarre. Now *that* is the epic FAIL! in this story... :-)
So, at best mr. Steens story is exactly what it is; a story. It has little to do with what *really* happened back then. I know.
In cases like this, it seems to me that someone should go back to the standards body, give them a dope-slap upside the head, and say, "Fix it!"
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I honestly believe half of the items above are "standard" simply because the W3C (and Mozilla) always do things the exact opposite of the way Microsoft did them. Mostly out of spite. Especially blatant ones, like "textContent"... seriously, it might as well read "textContentToBreakInteroperability".
The lack of a readyState and a sane button definition are just due to the W3C being ivory tower occupants who have zero imagination and even less practical experience building websites. Nothing else explains the moronity that was XHTML.
I mean, it takes imagination to conceive of a Javascript that needs to know if the DOM is ready without hooking into the ONLOAD event (since the event may have already fired), since it's not exactly the most common scenario. The fact is, though, IE supports that scenario and standards-compliant browsers don't, and can't.
Comment of the year
Don't worry, corporate browsers will be upgraded as soon as YouTube drops support for IE6.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Maybe there's some NIH, maybe there's some fear that Microsoft has patented their way. Sometimes the standards come first, and it's Microsoft that does it differently. None of it is a good situation.
Unfortunately the "new model" is more of this type of stuff, not less.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Blacks are a minority in my area, and they rarely seem to come by my store. And what with those crazy ebonics, I'm not gonna try to make sense of any of that. Figured the best solution would be to just put up a big sign outside my store telling them they're not welcome.
What do you mean I didn't solve the problem?
And you can get back to me when Opera passes a driving test, because right now it fails quite spectacularly.
PROTIP: Talking about a product failing a test of something which it doesn't actually support in the first place is disingenuous at best.
Wow man, relax. It was just a joke - i didn't even bother to read your post. The syntax was too weird to understand, and your thoughts are all over the place.
Also you worry too much about how you're modded.
"Wow man, relax. It was just a joke - i didn't even bother to read your post." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @06:00AM (#28805001)
I'd try reading what others wrote, in their entirety, before you go & "joke around"...
----
"Homepage The syntax was too weird to understand, and your thoughts are all over the place." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @06:00AM (#28805001) Homepage
Your lack of reading others' words & offering "critique" or "humor" beforehand is all over the place (as are your pills for your dyslexia treatments most likely, so, stop spilling their bottle, ok? That's just a joke too - you like?)
----
"Also you worry too much about how you're modded." by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @06:00AM (#28805001) Homepage
I worry about nothing, because I only spoke truth (verified by concrete, verifiable facts, from reputable enough sources), & that ought to be good enough for anyone... well, anybody normal that is, who is not a troll.
APK
P.S.=> Gotta love trolls & all their various "techniques": First, they bust on you, & THEN? Then, they try to play "the victim"... give us a break! apk
If I were a troll, you would be successfully trolled.
"If I were a troll, you would be successfully trolled." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @08:15AM (#28805541) Homepage
BOTTOM-LINE: You are, off topic, which clearly DOES make you a "TROLL" (& yet, You were not "modded down" for it? Please...)
(Whereas, by way of comparison, I was modded down for simply defending myself & my points here, & vs. quite clearly "invisible detractors" (the TRUE 'anonymous cowards' around this website really), & for merely stating facts the "fanboys of FireFox &/or IE" could not handle well, apparently)...
Trolls make 1 HUGE mistake: They think folks are stupid... Newsflash/"new NEWS":
People DO read downward modded posts too ("no press is bad press" in other words) + decide for themselves what is what in what is being stated by BOTH parties (provided both DO reply, & the "not men" that only use down mods of posts are stuck with that only, OR, saying "you cannot write"), & to that point in parenthesis specifically?
LOL, that is truly the 'last resort' of the troll, via their 'writing style critiques' as you had. This isn't my "last will & testament", nor other form of crucial or legal correspondence, nor even a grade for an academic paper even, for Pete's sake!
So, to that type of "critique" & my naysayesr on THAT account? I can only say this, in reply/response:
Please - Take your dyslexia or ADD/ADHD meds, & get that PHD in English, before you critique others' writing styles (as the latter especially might lend you some credibility on THAT puny account).
APK
P.S.=> Again - give us a break: Sometimes, the trolls here amaze me with their "effete down moderations" & "ad-hominem" style attacks of myself, but, not my actual proofs & points I noted, & never any actual TECHNICALLY BASED proofs & substance in fact, vs. points I make...
No biggie - I say that, simply because anybody with any sense & that can read, reads my points, & possibly my detractors' as well (well, when they DO reply that is, above their downmods of my posts), & can decide for themselves, as to "what's what" here - I freely welcome it in fact... apk
"No, being off topic merely makes me off topic." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @10:12AM (#28806587) Homepage
Your ADMITTING to being off topic does the job for me, thank you!
(However, you're "StRaNgELy" NOT being "modded down" for it? That does 'raise some questions/doubts' no doubt by this point, in the eyes of others... no questions asked)
APK
P.S.=> Trolls are TOO EASY to expose, especially off topic AD HOMINEM attacking ones, & especially ones that attack others' 'writing style' (minus a PHD in English to the attacking trolls' credit no less) PERIOD, instead of the points I or others raised.
Trolls seemingly always fail to use facts to disprove said points I or others stated when I or others get unjustifiably down-modded by such trolls: Does your kind actually THINK they're fooling anyone? Guess again, & "TOO easy"... apk
You seem to be advocating zero fonts, zero colors, zero images, zero layout
yes, you got my number right ;)
tag the elements. tell the browser 'here is a numbered list'. let the browser render.
you must be a younger person who was not around when 'tagged elements' first came out on the web. back in the very early days, the web DID work and was interoperable! it got steadily worse over time because MS and others tried to break the very definition of what the web was all about (separating formatting from the data, itself).
you think I have it all wrong? I'm quite certain YOU have it backwards, my friend.
I'm old enough to remember sgml and early tagged word processing languages. this is the model the web came from; tag the items and let some 'render' process lay them out.
web apps that try to force fonts and things simply 'dont get it'. just like you, apparently.
the web isn't some active-x video game, dude. trying to make it such IS the problem.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"There's no point for me to claim that I'm not off topic. Anybody can see that." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @10:57AM (#28807159) Homepage
You admit you're off topic, & that's all I need to see, along with you not being down modded for it as I was no less - I was modded offtopic & yet I am ON TOPIC, with my statements on Opera... odd that, eh? NOT!
----
"I've managed to piss you off thoroughly with minimal effort." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @10:57AM (#28807159) Homepage
\
You haven't "pi$$ed me off", in the least - it's just a forums is all, no biggie...
----
"Nobody is modding me down because nobody wants to waste their mod points in a three day old article discussion.
Hmmm, well, with THAT said by you... then, why are YOU here still then?
----
"you're way too invested in this discussion." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @10:57AM (#28807159) Homepage
Not really... I merely stated facts, with backing proofs of those from reputable enough sources as well, & about Opera is all...
----
"I think I'm just going to call it a day and declare your flawless victory over me." - by KingOfGod (884633) on Friday July 24, @10:57AM (#28807159) Homepage
I agree...
APK