How on earth can anyone expect millions of companies and individuals to re-invest substantial sums of money and/or time in order to be compliant with Firefox, aka "Web Standards"? Grandstanding about w3 bullshit and equivocating Firefox with Web Standards is a waste of time when discussing Web sites that already exist and will probably not ever be changed, or when discussing corporate Web apps that force IE on the users.
I would LOVE to see Firefox take more market share. But face the facts: it does not yet provide enough compatibility with MSIE to be a true contender. Popular opinion indicates that real web standards are dictated by the market leader - not the venerable w3. Consider how MS conformed to real (non)standards introduced by then market leader Netscape (NN3), and went on to take the market with a BETTER PRODUCT (IE4/5/6).
Your appeal to ridicule is pointless. Your way is not necessarily the right way.
Perhaps it works for you, but I would rather stick to free market mentality and let Firefox live or die by that mentality. Perhaps some developers like IE because they get paid to write code that targets IE. Your accusation indicates that these developers all work for MS or are incompetent coders. This is sometimes referred to as a False Dilemma.
Unfortunately, the moron at the cell phone company was correct. If Firefox worked properly, you wouldn't have to use IE to pay your bill online.
"Lawmakers had demanded the $1 million federal study, ultimately called "Signposts in Cyberspace," under a 1998 federal law, the Next Generation Internet Research Act."
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
In the link provided to AW: Unfortunately mozilla does not support tab navigation and focus() method on DIV element. Solving that involves much more than I thought initially. So this one will be in the next release (0.2.5 ?) Alex (ActiveWidgets) Tuesday, January 20, 2004
According to the author, implementing a FF event model for the grid requires work that could be made less painful if FF simply suppored the focus method on DOM elements.
Is that avoiding proprietary silliness?
I would venture to guess that if the EBA devs could get a decent grid running in FF and EE they would work on another way to encode their scrips, but anyway, it doesn't work in FF and that helps very little when we are trying to migrate small companies from MS Access to a nice cross platform solution.
Finally, your definition of "perfectly functioning" and mine are different. I do not find an unweildy javascript codebase to be "perfectly functioning". That said, it is a great effort in attempting to solve what should be a minor issue.
Many MS Access and VB developers (specifically) are attempting to move to rich client Web apps.
One of the problems we are encountering in working with FireFox is that we cannot set the focus to any element we want. In my case, I want to set the focus to any valid DIV on the page. In the MS IDEs this is possible and very useful.
Here are a couple of products that are attempting to do grid functions that do not work in Firefox because it appears that FireFox has a more limited Javascript implementation compared to IE:
I understand that there might be XSS threats, but those of us who REALLY want to get away from MS development tools need to have just such specific functionality that is offered by IE and is obviously being used in the market in both closed and open source projects.
What is the plan to make FF a more development friendly tool for those of us who would like to attempt rich client apps with a cross-browser solution?
Not to discredit your otherwise valid points, consider that:
All software evolves. Call it bloat or whatever, but that's what it is - evolution. Microsoft has wanted to maintain the illusion that they innovate at a rate similar to the demand of OEMS who need shiny new toys to put in the ever powerful new computers.
I don't recall MS ever having avoided the upgrade frustration from almost any MS OS to any other MS OS. But that's not their problem. Because the OEMS don't have that problem.
Does MS make much more off OEM sales than off the shelf, full or upgrade versions? Probably.
Many people did not upgrade from 95 to 98, rather new pc buyers got 98 (at OEM prices) while the Web was becoming more popular. From personal observation, most people who upgraded from 95 to 98 did so with a friend's copy of OEM 98.
Was WinME ever sold on nonOEM systems? It's smoke and mirrors. And now that XP has set in, for better or worse, notice the slowdown on OS releases. MS might not be as interested in driving *other's* hardware sales as they once were.
Windows XP does not require the kind of backup/restore issues suffered by the 9x line. I doubt that MS has any intention of returning to that mess.
Kevin Kelly did this in 1994
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
Just from reading the review, this reminds me of Out of Control, which may be a bit outdated but is still a very relevant look at similar concepts.
FTA - Which leaves us with the issue of when and where Microsoft will choose to apply pressure. It's much more likely to target weaker economies, as they have less bargaining power. Look out, Nepal! Microsoft would be foolish to force the issue in China, the largest holder of US dollars. If China were to retaliate, the dollar would be a junk currency and US shoppers could be looking at empty shelves. Er, Steve - you ought to think this one through.
This is something of an oversimplification. China cannot retaliate in such a way, and even if they did it is unlikely that Microsoft would be the cause. China has bigger problems than Microsoft and the WTO.
Exactly. They are also releasing a comprehensive comic book series. Although there is no official word, I would not be surprised to eventually see an animated series of some kind.
Yeah, I think they are going to take it alot farther than another movie. In other media this story will continue for as many years as we are willing to spend money on it.
I think the writers of this fiction do have some specific messages to convey, but I doubt they will expound upon it until the whole story has been told. The basic premise of the story is very old, but this retelling of it brings a multitude of valid meanings.
Of course people will try to find a deeper meaning. That is the point of telling the story.
What you find problematic with the Matrix is a good example of what makes the story so great.
You can apply so many interpretations to the meanings of the story and its characters. And each interpretation can have an almost complete comparison to a philosophical analogy or school of thought.
Many people apply the hero journey as the correct interpretation. I find them all intriguing.
What is the biggest threat to MS? Linux. Why did MS buy a SCO license? Hmm.
They can't compete with the price tag of Linux, but they can buy opportunities to spread FUD and keep the barrier to entry for other apps very high. Their biggest asset is the applications barrier, which is what this is all about.
This case is just in the early stages, but MS is not going to get screwed in the long run. They always have a plan and the uncanny ability to see the bigger picture. Whatever the price tag ends up being, it is the price of competing against Linux, its methods and ideology.
Re:Doing their work for them
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No doubt it would cost quite a bit.
However, this fiasco is good for the OSS community because it is going through an exercise of contending with some thorny IP issues and ultimately the sturdiness of the GPL.
If the community uses this opportunity to learn more about auditing code and its genealogy it will be better prepared to deal with the next challenger, who will most likely be a bit more savvy than SCO.
If MS "allows" itself to lose this case, are they not setting a precedent by which Eolas could attempt to attack OS?
Certainly a plug-in model exists in OS and has a GPL-style license. What's to stop Eolas from pulling a SCO and trying to charge everyone who uses OS-based plug-in technology?
It seems convenient that MS would lose on an important issue that could hurt OS much more than MS.
You forgot to mention convincing your record label to let you make a spacey 4-disc set wherein all 4 discs must played simultaneously for maximum listening pleasure. Countless other bands have done this.
But a dog is far more interactive and does much more for you than the cat, who just sits there and does what it wants on its own terms and its own time..
I suppose a dog is also more likely to eat you than a cat would be, but anyway..
The problem with the black bar is that they squeeze the picture rather than just layering the bar over the frame (at least on ST:TNG). When I have to watch captain picard this way it becomes unbearable and I would just rather get out the DVD.
WTF? So now the masses are going to not only have clueless tech support, but also the option of asshole tech support. That's wonderful! Is it just me, or is the BOFH syndrome local to *nix ops?
Slashdot Mirror
How on earth can anyone expect millions of companies and individuals to re-invest substantial sums of money and/or time in order to be compliant with Firefox, aka "Web Standards"? Grandstanding about w3 bullshit and equivocating Firefox with Web Standards is a waste of time when discussing Web sites that already exist and will probably not ever be changed, or when discussing corporate Web apps that force IE on the users.
I would LOVE to see Firefox take more market share. But face the facts: it does not yet provide enough compatibility with MSIE to be a true contender. Popular opinion indicates that real web standards are dictated by the market leader - not the venerable w3. Consider how MS conformed to real (non)standards introduced by then market leader Netscape (NN3), and went on to take the market with a BETTER PRODUCT (IE4/5/6).
Your appeal to ridicule is pointless. Your way is not necessarily the right way.
Perhaps it works for you, but I would rather stick to free market mentality and let Firefox live or die by that mentality. Perhaps some developers like IE because they get paid to write code that targets IE. Your accusation indicates that these developers all work for MS or are incompetent coders. This is sometimes referred to as a False Dilemma.
Unfortunately, the moron at the cell phone company was correct. If Firefox worked properly, you wouldn't have to use IE to pay your bill online.
FTA
"Lawmakers had demanded the $1 million federal study, ultimately called "Signposts in Cyberspace," under a 1998 federal law, the Next Generation Internet Research Act."
People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service?
Non-Sequitur and Begging the Question.
Yeah, let's definitely give the job to this guy.
In the link provided to AW:
Unfortunately mozilla does not support tab navigation and focus() method on DIV element. Solving that involves much more than I thought initially. So this one will be in the next release (0.2.5 ?)
Alex (ActiveWidgets)
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
According to the author, implementing a FF event model for the grid requires work that could be made less painful if FF simply suppored the focus method on DOM elements.
Is that avoiding proprietary silliness?
I would venture to guess that if the EBA devs could get a decent grid running in FF and EE they would work on another way to encode their scrips, but anyway, it doesn't work in FF and that helps very little when we are trying to migrate small companies from MS Access to a nice cross platform solution.
Finally, your definition of "perfectly functioning" and mine are different. I do not find an unweildy javascript codebase to be "perfectly functioning". That said, it is a great effort in attempting to solve what should be a minor issue.
Mitch,
.focus() in FF
Specific to Web Application development:
Many MS Access and VB developers (specifically) are attempting to move to rich client Web apps.
One of the problems we are encountering in working with FireFox is that we cannot set the focus to any element we want. In my case, I want to set the focus to any valid DIV on the page. In the MS IDEs this is possible and very useful.
Here are a couple of products that are attempting to do grid functions that do not work in Firefox because it appears that FireFox has a more limited Javascript implementation compared to IE:
Active Widgets discussion on
Very functional JS grid. Works in IE, try the demos in FF
I understand that there might be XSS threats, but those of us who REALLY want to get away from MS development tools need to have just such specific functionality that is offered by IE and is obviously being used in the market in both closed and open source projects.
What is the plan to make FF a more development friendly tool for those of us who would like to attempt rich client apps with a cross-browser solution?
Thanks for your time.
You mean, you think it's going to be delivered. :p
j/k - good luck!
Not to discredit your otherwise valid points, consider that:
All software evolves. Call it bloat or whatever, but that's what it is - evolution. Microsoft has wanted to maintain the illusion that they innovate at a rate similar to the demand of OEMS who need shiny new toys to put in the ever powerful new computers.
I don't recall MS ever having avoided the upgrade frustration from almost any MS OS to any other MS OS. But that's not their problem. Because the OEMS don't have that problem.
Does MS make much more off OEM sales than off the shelf, full or upgrade versions? Probably.
Many people did not upgrade from 95 to 98, rather new pc buyers got 98 (at OEM prices) while the Web was becoming more popular. From personal observation, most people who upgraded from 95 to 98 did so with a friend's copy of OEM 98.
Was WinME ever sold on nonOEM systems? It's smoke and mirrors. And now that XP has set in, for better or worse, notice the slowdown on OS releases. MS might not be as interested in driving *other's* hardware sales as they once were.
Windows XP does not require the kind of backup/restore issues suffered by the 9x line. I doubt that MS has any intention of returning to that mess.
Just from reading the review, this reminds me of Out of Control, which may be a bit outdated but is still a very relevant look at similar concepts.
FTA - Which leaves us with the issue of when and where Microsoft will choose to apply pressure. It's much more likely to target weaker economies, as they have less bargaining power. Look out, Nepal! Microsoft would be foolish to force the issue in China, the largest holder of US dollars. If China were to retaliate, the dollar would be a junk currency and US shoppers could be looking at empty shelves. Er, Steve - you ought to think this one through.
This is something of an oversimplification. China cannot retaliate in such a way, and even if they did it is unlikely that Microsoft would be the cause. China has bigger problems than Microsoft and the WTO.
Microsoft might actually wake up.
I don't think that's the kind of "FAST" he was writing about.
And your analogy is teh lame. All race cars are in the shop a lot. If I am at the races, yes, it is the best car for me.
Exactly. They are also releasing a comprehensive comic book series. Although there is no official word, I would not be surprised to eventually see an animated series of some kind.
Maybe not, but Robert Jordan doesn't have a story platform built on 3 major motion pictures, so the outcome will probably be different.
Usually it works the other way around: you make a great comic book or animation series and then whore it on the big screen.
Although it read like an anime.
I should hope so, as it is literally live action anime, nothing more nothing less.
Yeah, I think they are going to take it alot farther than another movie. In other media this story will continue for as many years as we are willing to spend money on it.
I think the writers of this fiction do have some specific messages to convey, but I doubt they will expound upon it until the whole story has been told. The basic premise of the story is very old, but this retelling of it brings a multitude of valid meanings.
Of course people will try to find a deeper meaning. That is the point of telling the story.
What you find problematic with the Matrix is a good example of what makes the story so great.
You can apply so many interpretations to the meanings of the story and its characters. And each interpretation can have an almost complete comparison to a philosophical analogy or school of thought.
Many people apply the hero journey as the correct interpretation. I find them all intriguing.
I doubt that this situation was unforeseen by MS.
What is the biggest threat to MS? Linux. Why did MS buy a SCO license? Hmm.
They can't compete with the price tag of Linux, but they can buy opportunities to spread FUD and keep the barrier to entry for other apps very high. Their biggest asset is the applications barrier, which is what this is all about.
This case is just in the early stages, but MS is not going to get screwed in the long run. They always have a plan and the uncanny ability to see the bigger picture. Whatever the price tag ends up being, it is the price of competing against Linux, its methods and ideology.
No doubt it would cost quite a bit.
However, this fiasco is good for the OSS community because it is going through an exercise of contending with some thorny IP issues and ultimately the sturdiness of the GPL.
If the community uses this opportunity to learn more about auditing code and its genealogy it will be better prepared to deal with the next challenger, who will most likely be a bit more savvy than SCO.
If MS "allows" itself to lose this case, are they not setting a precedent by which Eolas could attempt to attack OS?
Certainly a plug-in model exists in OS and has a GPL-style license. What's to stop Eolas from pulling a SCO and trying to charge everyone who uses OS-based plug-in technology?
It seems convenient that MS would lose on an important issue that could hurt OS much more than MS.
You forgot to mention convincing your record label to let you make a spacey 4-disc set wherein all 4 discs must played simultaneously for maximum listening pleasure. Countless other bands have done this.
But a dog is far more interactive and does much more for you than the cat, who just sits there and does what it wants on its own terms and its own time..
I suppose a dog is also more likely to eat you than a cat would be, but anyway..
The problem with the black bar is that they squeeze the picture rather than just layering the bar over the frame (at least on ST:TNG). When I have to watch captain picard this way it becomes unbearable and I would just rather get out the DVD.
WTF? So now the masses are going to not only have clueless tech support, but also the option of asshole tech support. That's wonderful!
Is it just me, or is the BOFH syndrome local to *nix ops?
Well, most rednecks don't have an IT dept. to convince..