He could be a smart guy, I don't know if he is or isn't -- Mr. Katz just strikes me as intellectually lazy. The most clear evidence for me is the way his articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's as if there was no thought of how to make the writing more concise, which would help illustrate his point to the reader much more effectively. Instead, the approach just seems to be a combination of, "Let me throw everything out that I can think of, so that I'll have a better chance of having something stick," and "Everything I've just written is crucial, I can't think of anything to cut out."
The second example for me would be the way he decries the way the media stereotypes people, and then he goes and does the exact same thing. Instead of cutting through the chaff, he just turns the story around 180 degrees and stereotypes the players from his perspective. I doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that he's doing this, and I attribute his failure to do anything about it to laziness. In a similar vein, there's his seeming need to tell us how everybody throughout history that he admires was really a geek in disguise. Ugh.
Lastly, I can't hold anyone in high intellectual esteem when they do as much pandering to the crowd as Mr. Katz does. The thing is, he presents himself as some non-conformist iconoclast, but his choice of outlets is nothing but preaching to the choir. Wired? Slashdot? I'm curious whether he could ever muster a criticism of the audiences for which he writes. The whole faux-populism, "Down with The Man!" bullshit. The entire "I'm a Mac user, but ya know, I think the geek lifestyle is so cool, that goshdarnit I'm gonna start using Linux, then tell you about my experience while I sugarcoat 90% of the problems that I had with it" claptrap. Now if he were a truly critical writer, his followup to that series would be a thorough explanation of why, despite the wonders of Linux, he ended up going back to his Mac. Of course, that would require telling Slashdot readers things that they don't want to hear, so don't look for that article any time soon, kids.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. If Mr. Katz hasn't actually gone back to his Macs, then I withdraw that particular conjecture, but stand behind my point. I just mentioned that as something I can easily picture Mr. Katz doing, but not something of which I have first-hand knowledge.
Basically, people just don't like QuickTime. Most people are fairly neutral about Real Player and Windows Media Player, but I've yet to meet one single non-Mac user who actually likes using QuickTime. In fact, the most common reaction is a strong dislike for it. Unless QTSS can serve up ASFs or RA files (I'm guessing that it can't, is that correct?), I don't think it has much chance.
As of the end of September, Linux accounted for 0.22% of all web users worldwide. (Source: Statmarket, 1999/09/29).
FOX wanted everyone to be able to view their site -- Linux users just happened to be part of "everyone." This has absolutely zilch to do with that silly critical mass thing you're talking about.
Whether or not you agree with the Department of Justice, their accusations only pertain to desktop computing, not servers. There's absolutely no way that anyone could accuse Microsoft of having a server monopoly.
The hypocrisy around here about Microsoft's bundling things with NT/2000 Server is pretty astounding. One minute, Slashdotters are telling us that NT Server is a horrible value. The next minute, they bitch whenever Microsoft adds something to increase the value of NT Server. Make up your minds, please.
Just as Sun can decide to add anything they want to their operating systems, so can Microsoft with NT/2000 Server. If they want, they can make it so that it has zero compatibility with any Unix out there. If the customer or developer decides they don't like it, they can pick a different OS to use or develop for. In case anyone hasn't noticed, Microsoft has a pretty good track record of getting people to choose theirs.
Ya know, for telling everyone that GNU/Linux is going to dominate the world, an awful lot of you sure seem concerned whenever Microsoft gives away something to its customers. I guess only the holy apostles of the GNU movement are supposed to ever get anything for free.
If you're worried that Microsoft is buying its way into the Navy, that's fine, but it's not what I was objecting to. I was referring to Cliff linking to Hemos's false information regarding the Yorktown incident. NT didn't crash in that situation -- it was the Navy's software that flaked out at the division by zero error and couldn't be brought back up. The NT servers themsleves didn't go down when the software crashed.
Seriously, when has Apple's reaction ever been anything but "We have no official comment at this time"? Remember how long Macs were susceptible to the Ping of Death a few years back? Silence from Apple. ApacheBench crashing any MacOS X Server that it touched, possibly pointing to an architectural flaw? No comment. No offense to you, John (I'm not sure if you work for Apple or not), but Apple seems to be near the bottom of the list -- at least they're above Oracle -- when it comes to releasing critical information in a timely manner.
Shawn: Stick with the SGIs and quit chasing fads. It's not like SGIs stopped being good computers. If you already own the SGIs, it sounds like the more expensive option is buying computers to replace them. Use all that money that you would've spent on new hardware and give it to the boys -- they're already underpaid enough as it is. Honestly, the idea that the US Army would use Slashdot for their recommendations is silly. It gives me a pretty good twinge of fear about our national security. Do you really speak for them, and if so, could you please give us your full name?
Cliff: Next time, just stick with giving us the story instead of posting an incorrect Slashdot article (the Navy/NT one) that is going to serve absolutely no other purpose but to turn part of the discussion into unnecessary flames. If you want to start a flame war, at least start it with something based on the truth.
Long answer: The way it would work internationally is that the US would put pressure (in the form of withholding aid and technology, increasing tarriffs, etc.) on the countries that don't go along with its plan. Just like they put pressure on other countries with regard to their drug laws, intellectual property laws, etc. That should take care of most of the countries outside of Western Europe. As for those guys, they're even more liberal than the United States, so it's hard to imagine their governments keeping their fingers out of it. Also, as the ridiculous "War over Kosovo" showed, for some reason they have a hard time saying no to the United States.
So what should I assume then, that Dvorak just wasn't anti-Microsoft enough for Hemos's tastes? I never attempted to say that Dvorak made a positive statement about Microsoft. Dvorak called Windows CE for handheld computers a flop. Hemos claimed that Dvorak called Windows CE a flop. Do you see why this is wrong? It's like me saying "Yo, Dino Pebbles tastes like crap," and then Hemos coming out with a Slashdot article claiming that I damned the entire Pebbles line of cereal, when in fact, I think Fruity Pebbles clearly lays the smack down on other cereals.
I hope you now understand the difference, because now that I've made myself hungry, I'm going to lunch.
I was under the impression that while the underlying technology of Sony's iLink was IEEE-1394, it uses a different pin layout than FireWire (4-pin vs. 6-pin). I'm actually glad that they called it something else besides FireWire, and not just because it screws Apple out of their screwball "royalty for using the name" fee. Just look at how much confusion there still is about the different types of SCSI -- now think about how much more confusion there would be from one of FireWire/iLink's biggest targets: home users. <shudder>
FWIW, I'd say that FireWire's been a bust so far when you consider all the hype.
Heh, and here I thought that the main purpose of XML was to give those long-suffering SGML users and supporters a chance to feel relevant for the first time since the '70s.;-)
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. Yes, I use XML, but it sure feels like déjà vu all over again.:)
Dvorak didn't say that Windows CE was a flop, he said that Windows CE handheld computers were a flop. That's a huge difference, as anyone who read the Slashdot article "386 Based Linux Powered Telephone" can tell you. You know, the one where Slashdot told us of this wonderful phone that supposedly ran Linux, when everyone who actually looked at the company's site could see that it ran Windows CE and that Linux wasn't even mentioned. (Needless to say, another black eye for Slashdot reporting.)
But hey, don't let simple fact-checking and journalistic integrity get in the way of your anti-Microsoft zealotry, right?
Heh, I gotcha, no problemo. Re-reading what I wrote, I didn't mean to be so brusque with you -- I had some dog barking in my ear and took my annoyance out on you. Take care.
Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. [...]
He didn't precisely say that he invented the internet, but what he said was just as false, and it's kinda difficult to make a snappy joke about claiming to have "taken the initiative in creating" the internet -- I'd write the discrepancy off as jokester's license.
What you're attributing to him is his explanation after everyone started to ridicule him. His original quote was, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." What you're saying was his equivalent of "Well, of course I never meant that I invented the internet, this is what I really meant," followed by the appropriate amount of weaselly BS. The funny thing was listening to his aides originally standing by his original quote until the laughter got too loud and they switched to the "that's not what he meant" tack.
Just curious, not a flame, but why were you so adamant about your explanation? If you were aware of his subsequent explanation (because you did get that part right), I'm surprised that you didn't know what he originally said.
Please tell me you're not that dense. You see, the version 3 browsers don't support HTML 4.0. Now, you're welcome to stay back in the stone age at 3.2, but you should be aware that things have advanced since then.
Let me make it a little plainer for you - HTML should not have to be targetted to a specific browser. If it's written properly, it will look good in any browser. If you have to "target" it at all, then it's not written properly.
That's garbage. Let me guess, you have absolutely no real world experience, do you? If you did, you'd know that you can write HTML 4.0 compliant pages 'til the cows come home, and Netscape will still choke on it. What's funny is listening to the Netscape users here bitching about some "poorly written" web page that Slashdot linked to, because it shows up mangled on their browsers. Of course it looks great on IE and Opera, but since Netscape gakked on it, they think it's a coding problem.
I would say that the absolute best thing about Mozilla is that it finally puts W3C HTML 4.0-compliant browsers into the hands of people who've been stuck with the current Netscape releases. Because if there's one thing that's been holding back web development, it's Netscape's atrocious lack of support for standards. You just can't sit down and write some HTML 4.0 page and expect it to work under Netscape. That is the main reason why you see "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" banners: not because they're using IE-only extensions, but because they're using W3C-compliant HTML that Netscape can't grokk. Perhaps there should be a "Best viewed with Internet Explorer or Opera" banner, or even "Best viewed with anything but Netscape" for these situations.;-)
And there's nothing at all wrong with the way FP targets specific browser brands, because most Intranets standardize on a single browser and make use of extensions. These aren't meant to be seen on the Internet and has nothing to do with my question to the original poster, who seemed to imply that FP was capable only of producing proprietary HTML -- he quotes Berners-Lee and takes it to mean that FP is "fucked up, evil, and wrong." They have nothing to do with each other, and he's an idiot for thinking that they do.
And for the GPL, the media has selected Linus Torvalds.
No, they didn't. The article didn't say anything about the GPL. If you were to poll the media, I'd say that a good number of them will have heard of Linux, and that the vast majority will have never heard of the GPL. The reason for the Linux hype is because it's quality free beer -- the "free speech" aspect has almost nil to do with its overall popularity. Why did you mention the GPL in regards to this article, anyway?
You can tell FP which brand of browser you're targetting (IE, Netscape, WebTV, or a combination), which generation of browser you require as a minimum (version 3.0 and up, or 4.0 and up), which server will be hosting the pages (Apache or IIS), as well as whether or not they use FP Server Extensions. And yes, you can choose a custom option for all of those choices. Now what does this have to do with a "Best Viewed By" banner?
This is because it shows, when a company's profitability is on the line (and make no mistake, the main purpose of businesses is to make money), who they trust most to make them money (which includes doing it in a safe and reliable way). It's the difference between me saying "My Cubbies can kick the Yankees' asses," and you saying "Wanna bet?" You better believe that I like the Cubs, but there's no way in Hell that I'm going to risk my finances on them against the Yankees.
Same goes for sites that use Stronghold or IIS/Commerce Server versus "JoeBob's Pet Cat Page." If JoeBob's website is unreliable, it's a pain in the arse, but that's about it. If Dell or Amazon.com's site goes down for even a couple of hours, that's millions of dollars lost. You can look at it as a case of "Who do I think is neat?" versus "When my financial well-being is on the line, who do I actually trust?"
Or, to phrase it in the spirit of the original example: It's all about talking the big talk versus putting your money where your mouth is.
First point: The author's examples don't really seem to back up his point regarding big/slow companies using lawsuits to stay on top of their competition. Etoys/etoy and MIT/Leonardo don't involve competitors. Being a Microsoft unit, Expedia would probably be characterized by most people as the big and slow outfit, yet they're the ones being sued by the online whizzes from Priceline. I would imagine that Barnes and Noble is often pictured as a lumbering giant, yet it's the mercurial Amazon.com which is the one doing the suing. He refers to Amazon.com as a dinosaur later, but compared to B&N?
Second point: Where has he been for the last two decades if he's only now noticing a lot of foolish lawsuits being filed? Forget just being filed, look at all the foolish lawsuits in the past twenty years in which the plaintiffs actually won. Hot coffee on your crotch, anyone?
First of all, this wasn't some organization promoting this view -- it was just an individual. Now, he's called an expert, but it's silly not to look at that with some perspective. Such as all the "military experts" telling us that Operation Desert Storm better bring a lot of body bags because the Iraqi Republican Guard was so brutal. We all know how this turned out. Or, the "societal experts" telling us how welfare reform in the U.S. would destroy the lower classes. Again, this didn't happen. In both cases, the experts' position was often affected by personal biases: people against the Persian Gulf war in the former case, and big-government proponents in the latter. When you look at what Mr. Troughton says, I think it's pretty clear that he's a GNU/Linux advocate through and through, and that it's likely that his Linux endorsement stems from that.
The most blatent evidence of his bias was the quote, "Linux is as secure as you can make a computer." Honestly now, do even Linux advocates here believe that? Even if you think that Linux is the best OS out there (because of a combination of its various strengths), I don't think any rational person would even try to put forth that argument. This is the main reason why I think he's a Linux fan who's trying to promote it by saying that it's the most secure OS, as opposed to someone who became a Linux fan because he found it to be the most secure OS.
Secondly, he made other quotes that made him sound like your good ol'-fashioned OS advocate. Namely, that Alan Cox is the best programmer on Earth, and "I've heard he writes code like Richard Stallman." I'm not saying that Mr. Cox is or isn't the best, but these statements sound less like they came from a dispassionate seeker of the most secure OS and more like your garden variety GNU/Linux-advocating name-dropper. Basically, the only thing that was missing was to hear him say, "Linus r00lz."
In other words, I'd take Mr. Troughton's words with an extremely large grain of salt.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Agree, and info on his next planned book
on
Gates of Fire
·
· Score: 1
Very fun book to read, some might argue that there was too much detail, but I found it absolutely fascinating. If I were the reviewer, I'd also add Mary Renault as an influence, as well as Keegan. Not that I have many complaints about the review, just wanted to mention that.
The main reason I'm posting this is to mention that his next book, which is due out in April of 2000, is about Alcibiades and the Peloponnesian War, in case any of you are into that. I have a couple of friends who are majorly into that era, and although I'm not (mainly because I'm not very familiar with it), I'm looking to learning about it, just as I learned so much from Gates of Fire
Slashdot Mirror
He could be a smart guy, I don't know if he is or isn't -- Mr. Katz just strikes me as intellectually lazy. The most clear evidence for me is the way his articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's as if there was no thought of how to make the writing more concise, which would help illustrate his point to the reader much more effectively. Instead, the approach just seems to be a combination of, "Let me throw everything out that I can think of, so that I'll have a better chance of having something stick," and "Everything I've just written is crucial, I can't think of anything to cut out."
The second example for me would be the way he decries the way the media stereotypes people, and then he goes and does the exact same thing. Instead of cutting through the chaff, he just turns the story around 180 degrees and stereotypes the players from his perspective. I doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that he's doing this, and I attribute his failure to do anything about it to laziness. In a similar vein, there's his seeming need to tell us how everybody throughout history that he admires was really a geek in disguise. Ugh.
Lastly, I can't hold anyone in high intellectual esteem when they do as much pandering to the crowd as Mr. Katz does. The thing is, he presents himself as some non-conformist iconoclast, but his choice of outlets is nothing but preaching to the choir. Wired? Slashdot? I'm curious whether he could ever muster a criticism of the audiences for which he writes. The whole faux-populism, "Down with The Man!" bullshit. The entire "I'm a Mac user, but ya know, I think the geek lifestyle is so cool, that goshdarnit I'm gonna start using Linux, then tell you about my experience while I sugarcoat 90% of the problems that I had with it" claptrap. Now if he were a truly critical writer, his followup to that series would be a thorough explanation of why, despite the wonders of Linux, he ended up going back to his Mac. Of course, that would require telling Slashdot readers things that they don't want to hear, so don't look for that article any time soon, kids.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. If Mr. Katz hasn't actually gone back to his Macs, then I withdraw that particular conjecture, but stand behind my point. I just mentioned that as something I can easily picture Mr. Katz doing, but not something of which I have first-hand knowledge.
Basically, people just don't like QuickTime. Most people are fairly neutral about Real Player and Windows Media Player, but I've yet to meet one single non-Mac user who actually likes using QuickTime. In fact, the most common reaction is a strong dislike for it. Unless QTSS can serve up ASFs or RA files (I'm guessing that it can't, is that correct?), I don't think it has much chance.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
As of the end of September, Linux accounted for 0.22% of all web users worldwide. (Source: Statmarket, 1999/09/29).
FOX wanted everyone to be able to view their site -- Linux users just happened to be part of "everyone." This has absolutely zilch to do with that silly critical mass thing you're talking about.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Whether or not you agree with the Department of Justice, their accusations only pertain to desktop computing, not servers. There's absolutely no way that anyone could accuse Microsoft of having a server monopoly.
The hypocrisy around here about Microsoft's bundling things with NT/2000 Server is pretty astounding. One minute, Slashdotters are telling us that NT Server is a horrible value. The next minute, they bitch whenever Microsoft adds something to increase the value of NT Server. Make up your minds, please.
Just as Sun can decide to add anything they want to their operating systems, so can Microsoft with NT/2000 Server. If they want, they can make it so that it has zero compatibility with any Unix out there. If the customer or developer decides they don't like it, they can pick a different OS to use or develop for. In case anyone hasn't noticed, Microsoft has a pretty good track record of getting people to choose theirs.
Ya know, for telling everyone that GNU/Linux is going to dominate the world, an awful lot of you sure seem concerned whenever Microsoft gives away something to its customers. I guess only the holy apostles of the GNU movement are supposed to ever get anything for free.
Stop the presses and call in the DoJ!!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail
GNU/Linux is already entrenched as the platform of communists. ;-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If you're worried that Microsoft is buying its way into the Navy, that's fine, but it's not what I was objecting to. I was referring to Cliff linking to Hemos's false information regarding the Yorktown incident. NT didn't crash in that situation -- it was the Navy's software that flaked out at the division by zero error and couldn't be brought back up. The NT servers themsleves didn't go down when the software crashed.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Netscape decided to trust the free software movement and open source their browser. When will Slashdot show the same faith and release its own code?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Seriously, when has Apple's reaction ever been anything but "We have no official comment at this time"? Remember how long Macs were susceptible to the Ping of Death a few years back? Silence from Apple. ApacheBench crashing any MacOS X Server that it touched, possibly pointing to an architectural flaw? No comment. No offense to you, John (I'm not sure if you work for Apple or not), but Apple seems to be near the bottom of the list -- at least they're above Oracle -- when it comes to releasing critical information in a timely manner.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Shawn: Stick with the SGIs and quit chasing fads. It's not like SGIs stopped being good computers. If you already own the SGIs, it sounds like the more expensive option is buying computers to replace them. Use all that money that you would've spent on new hardware and give it to the boys -- they're already underpaid enough as it is. Honestly, the idea that the US Army would use Slashdot for their recommendations is silly. It gives me a pretty good twinge of fear about our national security. Do you really speak for them, and if so, could you please give us your full name?
Cliff: Next time, just stick with giving us the story instead of posting an incorrect Slashdot article (the Navy/NT one) that is going to serve absolutely no other purpose but to turn part of the discussion into unnecessary flames. If you want to start a flame war, at least start it with something based on the truth.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Short answer: See NWO, errrr, I mean WTO.
Long answer: The way it would work internationally is that the US would put pressure (in the form of withholding aid and technology, increasing tarriffs, etc.) on the countries that don't go along with its plan. Just like they put pressure on other countries with regard to their drug laws, intellectual property laws, etc. That should take care of most of the countries outside of Western Europe. As for those guys, they're even more liberal than the United States, so it's hard to imagine their governments keeping their fingers out of it. Also, as the ridiculous "War over Kosovo" showed, for some reason they have a hard time saying no to the United States.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
So what should I assume then, that Dvorak just wasn't anti-Microsoft enough for Hemos's tastes? I never attempted to say that Dvorak made a positive statement about Microsoft. Dvorak called Windows CE for handheld computers a flop. Hemos claimed that Dvorak called Windows CE a flop. Do you see why this is wrong? It's like me saying "Yo, Dino Pebbles tastes like crap," and then Hemos coming out with a Slashdot article claiming that I damned the entire Pebbles line of cereal, when in fact, I think Fruity Pebbles clearly lays the smack down on other cereals.
I hope you now understand the difference, because now that I've made myself hungry, I'm going to lunch.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I was under the impression that while the underlying technology of Sony's iLink was IEEE-1394, it uses a different pin layout than FireWire (4-pin vs. 6-pin). I'm actually glad that they called it something else besides FireWire, and not just because it screws Apple out of their screwball "royalty for using the name" fee. Just look at how much confusion there still is about the different types of SCSI -- now think about how much more confusion there would be from one of FireWire/iLink's biggest targets: home users. <shudder>
FWIW, I'd say that FireWire's been a bust so far when you consider all the hype.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Heh, and here I thought that the main purpose of XML was to give those long-suffering SGML users and supporters a chance to feel relevant for the first time since the '70s. ;-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. Yes, I use XML, but it sure feels like déjà vu all over again. :)
Dvorak didn't say that Windows CE was a flop, he said that Windows CE handheld computers were a flop. That's a huge difference, as anyone who read the Slashdot article "386 Based Linux Powered Telephone" can tell you. You know, the one where Slashdot told us of this wonderful phone that supposedly ran Linux, when everyone who actually looked at the company's site could see that it ran Windows CE and that Linux wasn't even mentioned. (Needless to say, another black eye for Slashdot reporting.)
But hey, don't let simple fact-checking and journalistic integrity get in the way of your anti-Microsoft zealotry, right?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Heh, I gotcha, no problemo. Re-reading what I wrote, I didn't mean to be so brusque with you -- I had some dog barking in my ear and took my annoyance out on you. Take care.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Well, just for the complete, off-topic record, below is the quote in context, when, during a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, he was asked what things he brings to the table that Bill Bradley can't match. Fromp resident.2000/transcript.gore/:
h ttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/
He didn't precisely say that he invented the internet, but what he said was just as false, and it's kinda difficult to make a snappy joke about claiming to have "taken the initiative in creating" the internet -- I'd write the discrepancy off as jokester's license.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
What you're attributing to him is his explanation after everyone started to ridicule him. His original quote was, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." What you're saying was his equivalent of "Well, of course I never meant that I invented the internet, this is what I really meant," followed by the appropriate amount of weaselly BS. The funny thing was listening to his aides originally standing by his original quote until the laughter got too loud and they switched to the "that's not what he meant" tack.
Just curious, not a flame, but why were you so adamant about your explanation? If you were aware of his subsequent explanation (because you did get that part right), I'm surprised that you didn't know what he originally said.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Please tell me you're not that dense. You see, the version 3 browsers don't support HTML 4.0. Now, you're welcome to stay back in the stone age at 3.2, but you should be aware that things have advanced since then.
Let me make it a little plainer for you - HTML should not have to be targetted to a specific browser. If it's written properly, it will look good in any browser. If you have to "target" it at all, then it's not written properly.
That's garbage. Let me guess, you have absolutely no real world experience, do you? If you did, you'd know that you can write HTML 4.0 compliant pages 'til the cows come home, and Netscape will still choke on it. What's funny is listening to the Netscape users here bitching about some "poorly written" web page that Slashdot linked to, because it shows up mangled on their browsers. Of course it looks great on IE and Opera, but since Netscape gakked on it, they think it's a coding problem.
I would say that the absolute best thing about Mozilla is that it finally puts W3C HTML 4.0-compliant browsers into the hands of people who've been stuck with the current Netscape releases. Because if there's one thing that's been holding back web development, it's Netscape's atrocious lack of support for standards. You just can't sit down and write some HTML 4.0 page and expect it to work under Netscape. That is the main reason why you see "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" banners: not because they're using IE-only extensions, but because they're using W3C-compliant HTML that Netscape can't grokk. Perhaps there should be a "Best viewed with Internet Explorer or Opera" banner, or even "Best viewed with anything but Netscape" for these situations. ;-)
And there's nothing at all wrong with the way FP targets specific browser brands, because most Intranets standardize on a single browser and make use of extensions. These aren't meant to be seen on the Internet and has nothing to do with my question to the original poster, who seemed to imply that FP was capable only of producing proprietary HTML -- he quotes Berners-Lee and takes it to mean that FP is "fucked up, evil, and wrong." They have nothing to do with each other, and he's an idiot for thinking that they do.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
And for the GPL, the media has selected Linus Torvalds.
No, they didn't. The article didn't say anything about the GPL. If you were to poll the media, I'd say that a good number of them will have heard of Linux, and that the vast majority will have never heard of the GPL. The reason for the Linux hype is because it's quality free beer -- the "free speech" aspect has almost nil to do with its overall popularity. Why did you mention the GPL in regards to this article, anyway?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You can tell FP which brand of browser you're targetting (IE, Netscape, WebTV, or a combination), which generation of browser you require as a minimum (version 3.0 and up, or 4.0 and up), which server will be hosting the pages (Apache or IIS), as well as whether or not they use FP Server Extensions. And yes, you can choose a custom option for all of those choices. Now what does this have to do with a "Best Viewed By" banner?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
This is because it shows, when a company's profitability is on the line (and make no mistake, the main purpose of businesses is to make money), who they trust most to make them money (which includes doing it in a safe and reliable way). It's the difference between me saying "My Cubbies can kick the Yankees' asses," and you saying "Wanna bet?" You better believe that I like the Cubs, but there's no way in Hell that I'm going to risk my finances on them against the Yankees.
Same goes for sites that use Stronghold or IIS/Commerce Server versus "JoeBob's Pet Cat Page." If JoeBob's website is unreliable, it's a pain in the arse, but that's about it. If Dell or Amazon.com's site goes down for even a couple of hours, that's millions of dollars lost. You can look at it as a case of "Who do I think is neat?" versus "When my financial well-being is on the line, who do I actually trust?"
Or, to phrase it in the spirit of the original example: It's all about talking the big talk versus putting your money where your mouth is.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Second point: Where has he been for the last two decades if he's only now noticing a lot of foolish lawsuits being filed? Forget just being filed, look at all the foolish lawsuits in the past twenty years in which the plaintiffs actually won. Hot coffee on your crotch, anyone?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Did the authorities ever determine who was at fault for the accident in which he was killed. A little help from the readers in the U.K>, please?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
First of all, this wasn't some organization promoting this view -- it was just an individual. Now, he's called an expert, but it's silly not to look at that with some perspective. Such as all the "military experts" telling us that Operation Desert Storm better bring a lot of body bags because the Iraqi Republican Guard was so brutal. We all know how this turned out. Or, the "societal experts" telling us how welfare reform in the U.S. would destroy the lower classes. Again, this didn't happen. In both cases, the experts' position was often affected by personal biases: people against the Persian Gulf war in the former case, and big-government proponents in the latter. When you look at what Mr. Troughton says, I think it's pretty clear that he's a GNU/Linux advocate through and through, and that it's likely that his Linux endorsement stems from that.
The most blatent evidence of his bias was the quote, "Linux is as secure as you can make a computer." Honestly now, do even Linux advocates here believe that? Even if you think that Linux is the best OS out there (because of a combination of its various strengths), I don't think any rational person would even try to put forth that argument. This is the main reason why I think he's a Linux fan who's trying to promote it by saying that it's the most secure OS, as opposed to someone who became a Linux fan because he found it to be the most secure OS.
Secondly, he made other quotes that made him sound like your good ol'-fashioned OS advocate. Namely, that Alan Cox is the best programmer on Earth, and "I've heard he writes code like Richard Stallman." I'm not saying that Mr. Cox is or isn't the best, but these statements sound less like they came from a dispassionate seeker of the most secure OS and more like your garden variety GNU/Linux-advocating name-dropper. Basically, the only thing that was missing was to hear him say, "Linus r00lz."
In other words, I'd take Mr. Troughton's words with an extremely large grain of salt.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Very fun book to read, some might argue that there was too much detail, but I found it absolutely fascinating. If I were the reviewer, I'd also add Mary Renault as an influence, as well as Keegan. Not that I have many complaints about the review, just wanted to mention that.
The main reason I'm posting this is to mention that his next book, which is due out in April of 2000, is about Alcibiades and the Peloponnesian War, in case any of you are into that. I have a couple of friends who are majorly into that era, and although I'm not (mainly because I'm not very familiar with it), I'm looking to learning about it, just as I learned so much from Gates of Fire
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com