Microsoft isn't trying to control anything based on merit or technical superiority.
What a load of shite. The two main things talked about in the AOL/MS discussions are web browsing and multimedia. IE is technically superior to the competition. WMA is technically superior to MP3. WMV is technically superior to Real Video.
Pretend all you want that Netscape's troubles were due to IE bundling instead of the simple fact that their code was crap, but the fact of the matter is that the real reason people switch is because Microsoft puts out a better product.
Yeah, well I disagree back! The problem is that level playing field you mentioned is too low. If you keep the level playing field, why would Netscape even have bothered with the whole Mozilla trek? They could've kept building on the same lousy compliance of Netscape 4.x and have never been given any incentive to improve, since web devs couldn't have coded for the more complex capabilities of the W3 standards that the other guys do support.
As for PDAs, I think WAP's in a bit of trouble right now, so I'm just talking about devices which view regular old HTML.
I'd say give some of those designers you mentioned more time, and maybe a polite email (and by polite, I don't mean polite while being a sardonic/condescending ass); they're still scarred by having to deal with Netscape 4.x. I do think the Mozilla guys could do a great service to their users, though, by not being so stubborn with the document.all thing.
But that falls apart because Netscape does such a poor job implementing the standards that almost all the other browsers support. Your solution is to cripple everybody else just because a browser company with less than a 10% market share can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. If everyone using Netscape 4.7x and below would just upgrade to Netscape6/Mozilla, the web would be a much better place for everybody.
Your solution also would also be poor for sending specific content to non-typical-but-growing-more-common devices like PDAs.
I downloaded 'em all (except the three supporting docs that I wasn't interested in) before they turned off the pipe, so if they change something, I would notice. I don't expect them to, though.
Yeah, but it's one thing to code in your free time and not get paid much, or even not at all. But when you're taking it as a full time job? I mean, this puts him below the poverty limit, at least in the U.S. I don't see a whole lot of incentive in taking a full-time job that will still leave me eligible for welfare.
They're only paying him $2500 total for two months full-time work? That's just sad. Doesn't exactly make me want to sign up for a open source project anytime soon.
Microsoft didn't badmouth all open source efforts, and specifically said that the BSD license was just fine, because it doesn't impose nutty restrictions on developers. It was the GPL virus that they badmouthed.
Oh, and if you think that the billions that Microsoft has made has anything whatsoever to do with their inclusion of BSD-derived finger and nslookup clients, you're even dumber than you usually sound.
Damn, you guys are so clueless, it's hilarious. NT/Win2K's TCP/IP stack is multi-threaded (*BSD's isn't) and actually scales well with multiple processors (*BSD's doesn't, because as a result, it ends up putting a big lock around the entire stack). The *BSD folks might have fixed this problem by now, because the core developers admitted in the past that this is a problem. However, since they were discussing this as recently as just last year, they sure didn't have this capability before Windows did. But hey, you just keep believing that NT/Win2K uses the BSD stack if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Just don't expect anyone to think that you have half a clue.
But Philips spent money developing the technology. The band didn't spend a single penny, but they're going to use it to make money. How is it unfair for the band to have to pay something, too? They don't have to if they don't want to. They could use a free format — will having a lot of people unable to listen to this other format be worth saving $2000? — or they could invent their own streaming technology — think they could do this for under $2000?
Sounds like a simple free market question to me. Is it worth the money to have everybody and their sisters be able to listen to your broadcast without installing additional software? If it isn't, just use one of the alternatives that you can afford.
I think you have a misguided view of innovation. It's not just coming up with something completely brand new and never based on anything in the past, which is about as rare as anything out there. It also involves applying existing things in new ways. Take Apple. They didn't invent the mouse and windowing interface, but they were innovating in the mid 80s with the Mac. Other companies had done the all-in-one computer before, but Apple made a huge impact with the approach they took when they came out with the iMac.
Wow, I'd totally forgotten about CyberDog and OpenDoc. Of course, it's pretty straightforward that Microsoft would've componentized IE, because that's what they do with their software, but you're right. CyberDog was out there first by a pretty good margin, too. Damn, making me feel all old and stuff.;)
Since we're talkin' Macs here, I'll withdraw browser componentization and substitute it with ClearType for LCD displays, which Apple fans like to think of as taken from 70s Apple technology (mainly because of some web page by Steve Gibson, professional blowhard). Of course it isn't, which is why Apple wasn't doing anything similar when Microsoft came out with this.
Please, don't even bring up that piece of crap mouse that you couldn't use anywhere except on a special mousepad. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned on the same page as the real optical mice that companies make now.
Listen: The web browser engine as just another component instead of having a monolithic web browser is a good thing 99.5% of the time. You can thank Microsoft for that.
Smart tags, wheel/optical mouse, modularizing the web browser engine as just another system component, intelligent menus or whatever they're called, SOAP/UDDI. Well, that was easy.
Of course, now people will whine that those aren't really innovations since they were based on previous work. Well, too bad, everything is based on previous work, and if anyone should know that, it's the typical Slashdot user.
In the first half of the first sentence of your post, you sounded pretty much like a reasonable person. So I'm curious, what is your problem with Smart Tags? I'm asking you because I'd really like to hear a legitimate complaint instead of all this other bullshit that's being tossed around about this article.
But then you're forcing users to depend on some lazy-ass web developer. Smart tags are great for doing research, but it looks like like you're trying to take away this power that Microsoft and other third parties are giving Windows users. Why limit myself to the web site author's links when I can use my own? When there's a word on the web site that you've never seen, do you email the webmaster and ask him which dictionary you may use to look up the word?
Funny, when I look at you through my eyes, I see a complete idiot. It's so funny to see the reaction from the Linux zealots here. I have to remember to save this story for when other companies are implementing the same thing. And why will they? Because it's an awesome feature. (Oh yeah, I forgot that you've never seen it, but hey, by all means keep talking like you have.) Everyone will be able to look back and laugh at how shortsighted and simpleminded you guys were. Of course, everybody knew that anyway, which explains the complete lack of innovation in the open source world. *grunt* Fire bad! *grunt* New features evil!
Dude, settle down already. Please tell me that your post was a joke/troll. Office XP (including Word and Excel) already have these smart tags, and the smart tags have been pretty much universally praised, from cNet saying it was one of their favorite features, to ZDnet says, "will most likely become a key capability of all word processors--right up there with squiggly underlines for misspelled words and right-click spell check. [...] Trust us, this feature alone is enough to upgrade to Office XP." Hell, cNet and ZDnet aren't even all that gung-ho about upgrading to Office XP in the first place, but they still love this feature. And they're right, it's going to be like the wheelmouse where you get annoyed whenever you have to use computers without them.
I thought we were talking about reality here, not your made up chicken little fantasies. Smart tags are already available now, so please tell us how Microsoft has done anything unethical with them.
And ya know, if I decided to come out with my own Cryptonomicon-changing smart tags, I could, as could anybody else. But why would a user choose to activate this?
Nah, you're actually right about the problem of context. The smart tag wouldn't be able to distinguish the word "sexy" and whether it meant it in an erotic way or just in the more modern "hot topic" way. But by the same token, it's not really a problem because you're already going to know the context yourself.
The context problem isn't really one that confuses users, the problem is more of popping up unnecessary smart tags, which could be an annoyance. For example, I activated ESPN's smart tag for baseball on a sample document I was creating. (I was just testing a bunch of different ones out.) I got a smart tag underline below the word "long," so I mouse over it and see that ESPN's offering to take me to a page with a profile of the A's Terrence Long on it. So, it's a new technology and they need to work some kinks out. Number one should be making it case-sensitive, which would've prevented that situation. These things are definitely cool, though. I'd love SoccerNet or someone to come out with the same thing for soccer players, where whenever I'm emailing my friends about the subject, which is a lot, I'd get the smart tag under anyone's name I saw or wrote about, and instantly get their profiles. Sure I could do it manually in a browser, but there's no reason to waste the extra time when it's this easy with smart tags. I don't need to hunt for the link and create an anchor tag, I don't need to rely on my friends to insert the links. Just click on it, and bang, I'm there with the info I wanted.
The hypocritical whining about Microsoft definitely is lame, though, especially when people around here are telling us that they know what's best for other users. This technology is great, and if they don't want to use it, fine. They can get left behind while I'm getting things done with it. But go do your own thing and quit crying about it already, eh?
Say what? That's not backwards, that's the whole freaking point. Smart tags will be big because users often want more information on a particular topic. Information that isn't provided by or linked to by the web page's author. The authors who are too sloppy/lazy to provide such context would also usually be too lazy to do that "turn on via metatags" thing you're talking about. Smart tags are a way of still being able to get good info despite their lazy asses.
But smart tags are a competitive advantage that IE will have that other browsers won't. You keep going on with this stupid opinion that smart tags are a reason why people would leave Windows for a different OS. Care to actually explain this one?
Slashdot Mirror
I know that a rational argument can be made that Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, but please explain how AOL is a monopoly.
Cheers,
Microsoft isn't trying to control anything based on merit or technical superiority.
What a load of shite. The two main things talked about in the AOL/MS discussions are web browsing and multimedia. IE is technically superior to the competition. WMA is technically superior to MP3. WMV is technically superior to Real Video.
Pretend all you want that Netscape's troubles were due to IE bundling instead of the simple fact that their code was crap, but the fact of the matter is that the real reason people switch is because Microsoft puts out a better product.
Cheers,
Yeah, well I disagree back! The problem is that level playing field you mentioned is too low. If you keep the level playing field, why would Netscape even have bothered with the whole Mozilla trek? They could've kept building on the same lousy compliance of Netscape 4.x and have never been given any incentive to improve, since web devs couldn't have coded for the more complex capabilities of the W3 standards that the other guys do support.
As for PDAs, I think WAP's in a bit of trouble right now, so I'm just talking about devices which view regular old HTML.
I'd say give some of those designers you mentioned more time, and maybe a polite email (and by polite, I don't mean polite while being a sardonic/condescending ass); they're still scarred by having to deal with Netscape 4.x. I do think the Mozilla guys could do a great service to their users, though, by not being so stubborn with the document.all thing.
Cheers,
But that falls apart because Netscape does such a poor job implementing the standards that almost all the other browsers support. Your solution is to cripple everybody else just because a browser company with less than a 10% market share can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. If everyone using Netscape 4.7x and below would just upgrade to Netscape6/Mozilla, the web would be a much better place for everybody.
Your solution also would also be poor for sending specific content to non-typical-but-growing-more-common devices like PDAs.
Cheers,
I downloaded 'em all (except the three supporting docs that I wasn't interested in) before they turned off the pipe, so if they change something, I would notice. I don't expect them to, though.
Cheers,
Yeah, but it's one thing to code in your free time and not get paid much, or even not at all. But when you're taking it as a full time job? I mean, this puts him below the poverty limit, at least in the U.S. I don't see a whole lot of incentive in taking a full-time job that will still leave me eligible for welfare.
Cheers,
They're only paying him $2500 total for two months full-time work? That's just sad. Doesn't exactly make me want to sign up for a open source project anytime soon.
Cheers,
Microsoft didn't badmouth all open source efforts, and specifically said that the BSD license was just fine, because it doesn't impose nutty restrictions on developers. It was the GPL virus that they badmouthed.
Oh, and if you think that the billions that Microsoft has made has anything whatsoever to do with their inclusion of BSD-derived finger and nslookup clients, you're even dumber than you usually sound.
Cheers,
Damn, you guys are so clueless, it's hilarious. NT/Win2K's TCP/IP stack is multi-threaded (*BSD's isn't) and actually scales well with multiple processors (*BSD's doesn't, because as a result, it ends up putting a big lock around the entire stack). The *BSD folks might have fixed this problem by now, because the core developers admitted in the past that this is a problem. However, since they were discussing this as recently as just last year, they sure didn't have this capability before Windows did. But hey, you just keep believing that NT/Win2K uses the BSD stack if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Just don't expect anyone to think that you have half a clue.
Cheers,
But Philips spent money developing the technology. The band didn't spend a single penny, but they're going to use it to make money. How is it unfair for the band to have to pay something, too? They don't have to if they don't want to. They could use a free format — will having a lot of people unable to listen to this other format be worth saving $2000? — or they could invent their own streaming technology — think they could do this for under $2000?
Sounds like a simple free market question to me. Is it worth the money to have everybody and their sisters be able to listen to your broadcast without installing additional software? If it isn't, just use one of the alternatives that you can afford.
Cheers,
I think you have a misguided view of innovation. It's not just coming up with something completely brand new and never based on anything in the past, which is about as rare as anything out there. It also involves applying existing things in new ways. Take Apple. They didn't invent the mouse and windowing interface, but they were innovating in the mid 80s with the Mac. Other companies had done the all-in-one computer before, but Apple made a huge impact with the approach they took when they came out with the iMac.
Cheers,
Wow, I'd totally forgotten about CyberDog and OpenDoc. Of course, it's pretty straightforward that Microsoft would've componentized IE, because that's what they do with their software, but you're right. CyberDog was out there first by a pretty good margin, too. Damn, making me feel all old and stuff. ;)
Since we're talkin' Macs here, I'll withdraw browser componentization and substitute it with ClearType for LCD displays, which Apple fans like to think of as taken from 70s Apple technology (mainly because of some web page by Steve Gibson, professional blowhard). Of course it isn't, which is why Apple wasn't doing anything similar when Microsoft came out with this.
Cheers,
Listen: The web browser engine as just another component instead of having a monolithic web browser is a good thing 99.5% of the time. You can thank Microsoft for that.
Cheers,
Except that they don't use the BSD stack.
Cheers,
Smart tags, wheel/optical mouse, modularizing the web browser engine as just another system component, intelligent menus or whatever they're called, SOAP/UDDI. Well, that was easy.
Of course, now people will whine that those aren't really innovations since they were based on previous work. Well, too bad, everything is based on previous work, and if anyone should know that, it's the typical Slashdot user.
Cheers,
Yeah, and websites can instantly lose 86% of their visitors. Boy, you're one smart cookie!
Cheers,
In the first half of the first sentence of your post, you sounded pretty much like a reasonable person. So I'm curious, what is your problem with Smart Tags? I'm asking you because I'd really like to hear a legitimate complaint instead of all this other bullshit that's being tossed around about this article.
Cheers,
But then you're forcing users to depend on some lazy-ass web developer. Smart tags are great for doing research, but it looks like like you're trying to take away this power that Microsoft and other third parties are giving Windows users. Why limit myself to the web site author's links when I can use my own? When there's a word on the web site that you've never seen, do you email the webmaster and ask him which dictionary you may use to look up the word?
Cheers,
Huh? Smart tags don't just link to Microsoft sites. Most of them have been created by third parties, not Microsoft, and you can make them yourself.
I'm telling ya, this article will one day stand as a monument to the complete idiocy of most Slashdotters.
Cheers,
Funny, when I look at you through my eyes, I see a complete idiot. It's so funny to see the reaction from the Linux zealots here. I have to remember to save this story for when other companies are implementing the same thing. And why will they? Because it's an awesome feature. (Oh yeah, I forgot that you've never seen it, but hey, by all means keep talking like you have.) Everyone will be able to look back and laugh at how shortsighted and simpleminded you guys were. Of course, everybody knew that anyway, which explains the complete lack of innovation in the open source world. *grunt* Fire bad! *grunt* New features evil!
Cheers,
Dude, settle down already. Please tell me that your post was a joke/troll. Office XP (including Word and Excel) already have these smart tags, and the smart tags have been pretty much universally praised, from cNet saying it was one of their favorite features, to ZDnet says, "will most likely become a key capability of all word processors--right up there with squiggly underlines for misspelled words and right-click spell check. [...] Trust us, this feature alone is enough to upgrade to Office XP." Hell, cNet and ZDnet aren't even all that gung-ho about upgrading to Office XP in the first place, but they still love this feature. And they're right, it's going to be like the wheelmouse where you get annoyed whenever you have to use computers without them.
Cheers,
I thought we were talking about reality here, not your made up chicken little fantasies. Smart tags are already available now, so please tell us how Microsoft has done anything unethical with them.
And ya know, if I decided to come out with my own Cryptonomicon-changing smart tags, I could, as could anybody else. But why would a user choose to activate this?
Cheers,
Nah, you're actually right about the problem of context. The smart tag wouldn't be able to distinguish the word "sexy" and whether it meant it in an erotic way or just in the more modern "hot topic" way. But by the same token, it's not really a problem because you're already going to know the context yourself.
The context problem isn't really one that confuses users, the problem is more of popping up unnecessary smart tags, which could be an annoyance. For example, I activated ESPN's smart tag for baseball on a sample document I was creating. (I was just testing a bunch of different ones out.) I got a smart tag underline below the word "long," so I mouse over it and see that ESPN's offering to take me to a page with a profile of the A's Terrence Long on it. So, it's a new technology and they need to work some kinks out. Number one should be making it case-sensitive, which would've prevented that situation. These things are definitely cool, though. I'd love SoccerNet or someone to come out with the same thing for soccer players, where whenever I'm emailing my friends about the subject, which is a lot, I'd get the smart tag under anyone's name I saw or wrote about, and instantly get their profiles. Sure I could do it manually in a browser, but there's no reason to waste the extra time when it's this easy with smart tags. I don't need to hunt for the link and create an anchor tag, I don't need to rely on my friends to insert the links. Just click on it, and bang, I'm there with the info I wanted.
The hypocritical whining about Microsoft definitely is lame, though, especially when people around here are telling us that they know what's best for other users. This technology is great, and if they don't want to use it, fine. They can get left behind while I'm getting things done with it. But go do your own thing and quit crying about it already, eh?
Cheers,
Say what? That's not backwards, that's the whole freaking point. Smart tags will be big because users often want more information on a particular topic. Information that isn't provided by or linked to by the web page's author. The authors who are too sloppy/lazy to provide such context would also usually be too lazy to do that "turn on via metatags" thing you're talking about. Smart tags are a way of still being able to get good info despite their lazy asses.
Cheers,
But smart tags are a competitive advantage that IE will have that other browsers won't. You keep going on with this stupid opinion that smart tags are a reason why people would leave Windows for a different OS. Care to actually explain this one?
Cheers,