If you are using javascript, you certainly aren't settling for the least common denominator. Presumably you are doing what everyone else is doing, which is choosing how old of browsers you want to support, and coding from there. If that's true, then don't worry, you don't need to do HTML5 now, you can do it in five years or so.
Thirty years ago when operating systems proliferated, the POSIX effort attempted to apply standards to operating systems. That effort failed, insofar as a non-POSIX operating system rose to the top spot and has stayed there ever since.
Today, we are replacing operating systems with web browsers. The effort looks different, but we are slowly putting in place advanced standards for how they should work. This is an incredibly important effort. If we screw this up, something analogous to Windows could ruin the internet for literally generations.
We want standards because we verily believe they are better than proprietary solutions, in an overall sense. As web browsers advance, we need to continue the effort to make those advancements as standard as possible.
Some people don't seem to understand that the largest incentive to introduce new technologies is to make money.
Call me starry-eyed, but I wish the largest incentive to introduce new technologies were to improve the world for the common benefit of humanity.
But yes, sadly, most of us realize that we live in a world where we choose to have money drive just about everything. Maybe someday we'll choose a different way. Eh, this way ain't so bad.
I agree with you. I work at a company which processes large datasets on a farm of servers. We are currently in discussions to buy a bunch of SSD drives exactly for the purposes you describe: to help cache data during the processing.
But for me and my laptop, I think it'll be a couple years before I will have an SSD HD.
Indeed. I have watched WD go from cheap brand to respected brand. To answer your rhetorical question with a real answer: it happened over the last, say, five or six years.
Yes. Freedom zero, the right to life, which means the personal capacity for lethal force -- ie, guns. And freedom one, expression. Obviously, like all places, UK has good and bad points, but without those basic freedoms I don't think it can be fairly described as free. Also, come on, still with the royalty? Really? Just sayin'.
Totally agreed. Especially in an unfree country such as the UK, I wouldn't expect the police to respect any promise. Even in free countries like the USA, I wouldn't do that. It's perfectly reasonable to give your DNA to the police for testing in connection to a crime, right after they show your lawyer a court order compelling it.
You obviously know nothing about homeopathy because you got it totally backwards. The problem is that the scientists use water with way too much tritiate in it. You have to remove it by tapping the water's container on a hard surface.
Although I consider it extremely rude and anti-social behavior, it's not fair to construe prosthelytizing as "forcing". It's more like "asking nicely", or perhaps "asking in a pushy sort of way".
In the past, there was lots of "forcing" religion on others, but the only group that I can think of doing that today is the extremist Muslims, whose explicit stated goal is a unified worldwide Muslim state, having killed all nonbelievers. That's bad news for everyone.
Sure, I'd love it if evangelical religions shriveled up and blew away like so much dust, but anyone who comes to your door will leave if you smile and say you aren't interested. Or, if you curse at them and tell them to GTFO your property.
And in the end, I'd say I much prefer tolerance to whatever the Christians are calling "helping others reach their true potential". That's a cute euphemism for all sorts of impolite behavior.
So anyone who wants to help me reach my true potential can either tolerate me, because I am already the person I want to be, or they can please piss off.
Every dollar they make today, from any product, is because they won the browser war. The predictions from 1996 turned out correct: the browser *is* the operating system; the browser *is* the platform on which software is developed. We can see that somewhat today, and in an increasing manner.
As for search, I'm less convinced. Search might be the web's killer app, but it's not a platform, so it won't be as important.
the first thing your customers will ask you, how good does it support Microsoft Office file format or how good will my Windows only applications running
"How good?" Where the heck are your customers, in West Virginia?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are using javascript, you certainly aren't settling for the least common denominator. Presumably you are doing what everyone else is doing, which is choosing how old of browsers you want to support, and coding from there. If that's true, then don't worry, you don't need to do HTML5 now, you can do it in five years or so.
One step at a time, brother.
Thirty years ago when operating systems proliferated, the POSIX effort attempted to apply standards to operating systems. That effort failed, insofar as a non-POSIX operating system rose to the top spot and has stayed there ever since.
Today, we are replacing operating systems with web browsers. The effort looks different, but we are slowly putting in place advanced standards for how they should work. This is an incredibly important effort. If we screw this up, something analogous to Windows could ruin the internet for literally generations.
We want standards because we verily believe they are better than proprietary solutions, in an overall sense. As web browsers advance, we need to continue the effort to make those advancements as standard as possible.
Some people don't seem to understand that the largest incentive to introduce new technologies is to make money.
Call me starry-eyed, but I wish the largest incentive to introduce new technologies were to improve the world for the common benefit of humanity.
But yes, sadly, most of us realize that we live in a world where we choose to have money drive just about everything. Maybe someday we'll choose a different way. Eh, this way ain't so bad.
No no, it didn't seem safe at the time. Everyone who didn't have their head inside their kiester knew it was a gaping security hole.
Golly, I wish some of those people worked at Microsoft.
Awesome. So Microsoft is planning to release IE9 sometime in early 1998?
I agree with you. I work at a company which processes large datasets on a farm of servers. We are currently in discussions to buy a bunch of SSD drives exactly for the purposes you describe: to help cache data during the processing.
But for me and my laptop, I think it'll be a couple years before I will have an SSD HD.
Indeed. I have watched WD go from cheap brand to respected brand. To answer your rhetorical question with a real answer: it happened over the last, say, five or six years.
Yes. Freedom zero, the right to life, which means the personal capacity for lethal force -- ie, guns. And freedom one, expression. Obviously, like all places, UK has good and bad points, but without those basic freedoms I don't think it can be fairly described as free. Also, come on, still with the royalty? Really? Just sayin'.
Totally agreed. Especially in an unfree country such as the UK, I wouldn't expect the police to respect any promise. Even in free countries like the USA, I wouldn't do that. It's perfectly reasonable to give your DNA to the police for testing in connection to a crime, right after they show your lawyer a court order compelling it.
No, it's not illegal, nor should it be.
You obviously know nothing about homeopathy because you got it totally backwards. The problem is that the scientists use water with way too much tritiate in it. You have to remove it by tapping the water's container on a hard surface.
there is little need to legalize medicinal marijuana joints when we can create synthetic THC that is identical to natural sources.
That's right. Marijuana shouldn't be legal because it is medicine (although, to be clear, it is medicine); it should be legal because it is awesome.
Well holy crap, finally Rebecca will have something positive to say on next week's podcast of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.
Although I consider it extremely rude and anti-social behavior, it's not fair to construe prosthelytizing as "forcing". It's more like "asking nicely", or perhaps "asking in a pushy sort of way".
In the past, there was lots of "forcing" religion on others, but the only group that I can think of doing that today is the extremist Muslims, whose explicit stated goal is a unified worldwide Muslim state, having killed all nonbelievers. That's bad news for everyone.
Sure, I'd love it if evangelical religions shriveled up and blew away like so much dust, but anyone who comes to your door will leave if you smile and say you aren't interested. Or, if you curse at them and tell them to GTFO your property.
I think that's a fair way to explain it.
And in the end, I'd say I much prefer tolerance to whatever the Christians are calling "helping others reach their true potential". That's a cute euphemism for all sorts of impolite behavior.
So anyone who wants to help me reach my true potential can either tolerate me, because I am already the person I want to be, or they can please piss off.
Uhg, I beg to differ. Peeps are extremely nasty.
The logical fallacy you are looking for is "false dichotomy", and you are totally right.
I'm shocked by that. I'd be interested in seeing what the runtime experience would be on hardware typical of Win 2000.
But touche, good sir, touche.
Their best-ever product was Bob.
Yes, but the legal threshold is very high. This instance wouldn't even come close to that threshold.
Every dollar they make today, from any product, is because they won the browser war. The predictions from 1996 turned out correct: the browser *is* the operating system; the browser *is* the platform on which software is developed. We can see that somewhat today, and in an increasing manner.
As for search, I'm less convinced. Search might be the web's killer app, but it's not a platform, so it won't be as important.
the first thing your customers will ask you, how good does it support Microsoft Office file format or how good will my Windows only applications running
"How good?" Where the heck are your customers, in West Virginia?
I'll go on the record as preferring the ribbon to the menu.
I agree mostly, but I proffer that Sharepoint might be the next juggernaut, like Windows or Office. Only time will tell.
Will modern web browsers run on Win2k? I doubt they will, and I doubt that 90% of businesses could function "ably" using a browser from a decade ago.