Well, it's only been a few years, and I'm still waiting for Mozilla to support something as simple as click() on an anchor tag. Fuck the fancy stuff. They need to get the basics working.
Because a browser that does what you want it to do is significantly more complex than any of the three examples you gave.
Significantly more complex? It's a fucking BROWSER. It shouldn't DO anything other than render web pages. That's it. No email. No pretty pictures. No fancy menus. Render web pages. And render ALL of them that are even close. I don't want to know if the web page's HTML isn't perfect. I don't want to know if it isn't up to the "W3C specification". I don't give a shit. Just show me the web pages, and show them to me quickly and correctly. I don't know about you, but the current version of IE does this flawlessly for me, and is fast as hell. I'm happy.
That almost makes me think that they didn't throw out all of the Netscape code when developing Mozilla. Netscape has *always* had a very serious problem with any medium to large sized tables (more than 10 or so rows).
How much longer can programmers count on a healthy, US based industry?
You're still assuming that there IS a "healthy, US based [programming] industry". From where I sit (a former senior developer), it's leaving the US now. It started a few years ago. I saw it, and I got out of the industry altogether. I'm sorry, but I really think that this answer is a no-brainer.
Only 2? There are loads of web browsers. IE and Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, iCab, gtk-html etc. Virtually all of them save IE and Opera implement the specs pretty well. IE just suffers from a lot of bugs - you'll notice in IE6 one of the "new features" was a modicum of standards compliance. Yes, there are bugs in browsers. Wowee, the programmers made some mistakes. It happens, these are not simple technologies. IE has more bugs than it should do, but they seem to be getting their act together to at least some extent.
There are no more than two that are even remotely popular (and the popularity of Netscape/Mozilla is falling by the day). The other ones are largely irrelevant.
And as far as compliance, much more of the DOM is implemented in IE than it is in Mozilla. I have *several* non compliance issues open in Bugzilla that haven't been addressed in nearly a year. OTOH, I haven't stumbled across a part of the DOM that IE is lacking in yet.
As far as bugs, I don't know what you're talking about.
Sure there is - interoperability. Hence the fact that all web browsers attempt to use the same technologies. Some manage better than others of course.
This goes back to my first point. Interoperability? Depending on the numbers you read, 85-95% of all surfers use IE. For the vast majority of web site owners, interoperability with the W3C spec is a moot point. IE interoperability is key. If IE decided to completely split fromt he W3C spec tomorrow, whose specs are going to be followed? With 95% of my surfers using IE, that's what I'm concerned about. Hence, the W3C has no teeth.
The point of the W3C is not to be a research institution. There was structured markup before XML, there was hypertext before HTTP, there was vector graphics before SVG. But people are using these specs regardless, because the value of interoperability is high. That last sentance is provably false, for a specification to reach "W3C Recommendation" status there must be at least one, often more than one implementation. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all their specs are meant for the web browser, or even the web.
Ok, maybe *somebody's* using every one, but a handful of users does not a "standard" make. XSL? PNG? Again, they can scream until they're blue in the face, hold press conferences, protest, whatever, but unless a large number of people want to actually *use* those specs, they're about as worthwhile as the new "NineNine SeXML" spec that I could write.
Not a single thing that you listed has been implemented as per their specs. There are still two different browsers, with each one only supporting the various technologies partially. There's no consistency between the brosers (still), and there's probably not going to be. They may have *ideas*, but the technical specifications are simply not implemented. Hell, I've got an open issue in Bugzilla that is a W3C spec that Mozilla doesn't support, and it's been open for close to a year. There's clearly no kind of real, pressing reason for software developers to design according to the W3C specs. The W3C has no teeth. The best they can do is throw something out there, and cross their fingers.On top of that, I gotta say that from what I've read, these various technologies would have happened with or without the W3C. And, you didn't list the hundreds of other specifications that they wrote that are simple not implemented anywhere.
... the W3C has been a group without any kind of power for a long time. They've been suggesting technical web standard since the Web began, but they've been largely ignored for at least the past 3-4 years. I doubt that this recommendation will be any more than that, a recommendation. I really don't think that anybody of importance (in this case, the US patent office) really pays them much attention any more. Hard to hear, but that's reality.
How do you know it was shoddy security? Maybe the hackers were really good. You have no idea as to the details.
Oh, and by the way, I hope that you have your house very, very secure. If you don't have bars over the windows, I'm coming in and taking everything, and that's entirely your fault for not having bars over the windows.
I agree. I just finally got the page rank that I deserve. I'm very happy with the change. They got rid of a LOT of intentional search engine spammers. Good riddens. Google is much better now, not worse.
They're all security holes, if they aren't patched. Very few of the things that they listed aren't completely patchable (yes, including IIS). Keep up with the patches, and don't do stupid things, and you'll be fine.
Actually, there are more costs than just development... They'd have to spend money on support for the product, money on the marketing, etc. Rolling out a product for a different platform isn't as simple as paying some guy to write the code. There's a lot more that goes into it. So I guess I'm re-enforcing the parent here. It's just not economical, but even more so than saying "Well, it only costs $100K for development".
You can't "bomb" google with meta tags. They don't help that much. But they DO help a little bit. I've seen pages in which I forgot to change the meta tags after a copy/paste come up based on those meta tags. But, my point is that link popularity is MUCH more important to Google, as it should be.
"Google Bombing" as they call it has nothing to do with meta tags. "Google Bombing" happens because Google works primarily on link popularity, not meta tags. But, meta tags do help.
Well, I know the post was except for porn sites, but the reason that porn sites use 'em is because they work! Nobody knows search engines more than porn site owners. Part of what got me this listing was good meta tags. Porn sites rule the web as far as traffic and profitability. When in doubt, do what to porn sites do.
Serial & Parallel & PS2 ports don't work in Linux? That's news to me.
I don't know about you, but I plug my stuff into my computer, and it stays there until it or the computer dies. Right now, I have 2 things off of a printer port, 3 off of a keyboard port, and a plain old mouse. I'm not touching USB for several more years.
Available in ever computer built in last 6-7(?) years.
Very cheap.
Serial & Parallel ports:
Available in every computer built in last 15 years.
Very cheap.
Fast enough for almost every application.
That's great that all you college kids have the money to buy new computers, but for us in the real world, using computers *gasp* more than a year old *gasp*, serial & parallel and the PS2 ports work just fine. They're cheap, and they always work.
USB & Firewire are both completely irrelevant to me.
We should all mass apply and/. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
No. That's useless and childish. What we all should do is to make sure that all of the audio/video, etc. that we have on our hard drives is what it says it is, and leave your favorate P2P client running CONSTANTLY. They want warfare? I'll give 'em warfare.
I loved this paragraph: The studios have sacrificed office space for a vast reception area with a cozy coffee corner and couches. Cubicles for programmers are squeezed high into the corners of the building, almost as an afterthought.
Meaning, the programmers are just unimportant people that they can "squeeze" away into cubicles, while tons of space is wasted in the fucking lobby. What a shitty company.
If I worked there, I'd organize all of the programmers to go work downstairs in the posh lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.
...quite a bit about this subject, but I gotta quit eating up bandwidth by surfing so my copy of Star Wars Episode 2 can finish downloading over Kazaalite.
In the adult industry, as you can imagine, there are all kinds of "cheaters". The affiliate programs went to keep a good name, so something like this would be ended immediately, without question. Amazon needs to close their affiliate account, and not send them another dime. Generally affiliate programs have this agreement too (hey, you agreed not to cheap when you signed up, Kazaa, you fucking bastards). Also, if I were using Amazon as one of my affiliates, I'd dump 'em in a heartbeat and tell them why.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Well, it's only been a few years, and I'm still waiting for Mozilla to support something as simple as click() on an anchor tag. Fuck the fancy stuff. They need to get the basics working.
Because a browser that does what you want it to do is significantly more complex than any of the three examples you gave.
Significantly more complex? It's a fucking BROWSER. It shouldn't DO anything other than render web pages. That's it. No email. No pretty pictures. No fancy menus. Render web pages. And render ALL of them that are even close. I don't want to know if the web page's HTML isn't perfect. I don't want to know if it isn't up to the "W3C specification". I don't give a shit. Just show me the web pages, and show them to me quickly and correctly. I don't know about you, but the current version of IE does this flawlessly for me, and is fast as hell. I'm happy.
That almost makes me think that they didn't throw out all of the Netscape code when developing Mozilla. Netscape has *always* had a very serious problem with any medium to large sized tables (more than 10 or so rows).
How much longer can programmers count on a healthy, US based industry?
You're still assuming that there IS a "healthy, US based [programming] industry". From where I sit (a former senior developer), it's leaving the US now. It started a few years ago. I saw it, and I got out of the industry altogether. I'm sorry, but I really think that this answer is a no-brainer.
Only 2? There are loads of web browsers. IE and Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, iCab, gtk-html etc. Virtually all of them save IE and Opera implement the specs pretty well. IE just suffers from a lot of bugs - you'll notice in IE6 one of the "new features" was a modicum of standards compliance. Yes, there are bugs in browsers. Wowee, the programmers made some mistakes. It happens, these are not simple technologies. IE has more bugs than it should do, but they seem to be getting their act together to at least some extent.
There are no more than two that are even remotely popular (and the popularity of Netscape/Mozilla is falling by the day). The other ones are largely irrelevant.
And as far as compliance, much more of the DOM is implemented in IE than it is in Mozilla. I have *several* non compliance issues open in Bugzilla that haven't been addressed in nearly a year. OTOH, I haven't stumbled across a part of the DOM that IE is lacking in yet.
As far as bugs, I don't know what you're talking about.
Sure there is - interoperability. Hence the fact that all web browsers attempt to use the same technologies. Some manage better than others of course.
This goes back to my first point. Interoperability? Depending on the numbers you read, 85-95% of all surfers use IE. For the vast majority of web site owners, interoperability with the W3C spec is a moot point. IE interoperability is key. If IE decided to completely split fromt he W3C spec tomorrow, whose specs are going to be followed? With 95% of my surfers using IE, that's what I'm concerned about. Hence, the W3C has no teeth.
The point of the W3C is not to be a research institution. There was structured markup before XML, there was hypertext before HTTP, there was vector graphics before SVG. But people are using these specs regardless, because the value of interoperability is high. That last sentance is provably false, for a specification to reach "W3C Recommendation" status there must be at least one, often more than one implementation. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all their specs are meant for the web browser, or even the web.
Ok, maybe *somebody's* using every one, but a handful of users does not a "standard" make. XSL? PNG? Again, they can scream until they're blue in the face, hold press conferences, protest, whatever, but unless a large number of people want to actually *use* those specs, they're about as worthwhile as the new "NineNine SeXML" spec that I could write.
Not a single thing that you listed has been implemented as per their specs. There are still two different browsers, with each one only supporting the various technologies partially. There's no consistency between the brosers (still), and there's probably not going to be. They may have *ideas*, but the technical specifications are simply not implemented. Hell, I've got an open issue in Bugzilla that is a W3C spec that Mozilla doesn't support, and it's been open for close to a year. There's clearly no kind of real, pressing reason for software developers to design according to the W3C specs. The W3C has no teeth. The best they can do is throw something out there, and cross their fingers.On top of that, I gotta say that from what I've read, these various technologies would have happened with or without the W3C. And, you didn't list the hundreds of other specifications that they wrote that are simple not implemented anywhere.
... the W3C has been a group without any kind of power for a long time. They've been suggesting technical web standard since the Web began, but they've been largely ignored for at least the past 3-4 years. I doubt that this recommendation will be any more than that, a recommendation. I really don't think that anybody of importance (in this case, the US patent office) really pays them much attention any more. Hard to hear, but that's reality.
How do you know it was shoddy security? Maybe the hackers were really good. You have no idea as to the details.
Oh, and by the way, I hope that you have your house very, very secure. If you don't have bars over the windows, I'm coming in and taking everything, and that's entirely your fault for not having bars over the windows.
This has nothing to do with the Adobe case. This case was about a real hacker stealing real credit card numbers.
I agree. I just finally got the page rank that I deserve. I'm very happy with the change. They got rid of a LOT of intentional search engine spammers. Good riddens. Google is much better now, not worse.
So then, I guess that I can find the removal tool for the Slapper worm, currently going around Here?
They're all security holes, if they aren't patched. Very few of the things that they listed aren't completely patchable (yes, including IIS). Keep up with the patches, and don't do stupid things, and you'll be fine.
Actually, there are more costs than just development... They'd have to spend money on support for the product, money on the marketing, etc. Rolling out a product for a different platform isn't as simple as paying some guy to write the code. There's a lot more that goes into it. So I guess I'm re-enforcing the parent here. It's just not economical, but even more so than saying "Well, it only costs $100K for development".
You can't "bomb" google with meta tags. They don't help that much. But they DO help a little bit. I've seen pages in which I forgot to change the meta tags after a copy/paste come up based on those meta tags. But, my point is that link popularity is MUCH more important to Google, as it should be.
"Google Bombing" as they call it has nothing to do with meta tags. "Google Bombing" happens because Google works primarily on link popularity, not meta tags. But, meta tags do help.
Well, I know the post was except for porn sites, but the reason that porn sites use 'em is because they work! Nobody knows search engines more than porn site owners. Part of what got me this listing was good meta tags. Porn sites rule the web as far as traffic and profitability. When in doubt, do what to porn sites do.
Serial & Parallel & PS2 ports don't work in Linux? That's news to me.
I don't know about you, but I plug my stuff into my computer, and it stays there until it or the computer dies. Right now, I have 2 things off of a printer port, 3 off of a keyboard port, and a plain old mouse. I'm not touching USB for several more years.
PS2 ports:
Low speed peripherals (Keyboards, mice)
Available in ever computer built in last 6-7(?) years.
Very cheap.
Serial & Parallel ports:
Available in every computer built in last 15 years.
Very cheap.
Fast enough for almost every application.
That's great that all you college kids have the money to buy new computers, but for us in the real world, using computers *gasp* more than a year old *gasp*, serial & parallel and the PS2 ports work just fine. They're cheap, and they always work.
USB & Firewire are both completely irrelevant to me.
I think that you're probably the only person on the planet other than myself who's seen that movie. Good call!
Aurooooaaaara, Auroooaaara. What a great name.
We should all mass apply and /. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
No. That's useless and childish. What we all should do is to make sure that all of the audio/video, etc. that we have on our hard drives is what it says it is, and leave your favorate P2P client running CONSTANTLY. They want warfare? I'll give 'em warfare.
I loved this paragraph: The studios have sacrificed office space for a vast reception area with a cozy coffee corner and couches. Cubicles for programmers are squeezed high into the corners of the building, almost as an afterthought.
Meaning, the programmers are just unimportant people that they can "squeeze" away into cubicles, while tons of space is wasted in the fucking lobby. What a shitty company.
If I worked there, I'd organize all of the programmers to go work downstairs in the posh lobby and tell the management to fuck themselves.
If this product comes out, the Chinese will be some very rucky people. Very rucky.
...quite a bit about this subject, but I gotta quit eating up bandwidth by surfing so my copy of Star Wars Episode 2 can finish downloading over Kazaalite.
In the adult industry, as you can imagine, there are all kinds of "cheaters". The affiliate programs went to keep a good name, so something like this would be ended immediately, without question. Amazon needs to close their affiliate account, and not send them another dime. Generally affiliate programs have this agreement too (hey, you agreed not to cheap when you signed up, Kazaa, you fucking bastards). Also, if I were using Amazon as one of my affiliates, I'd dump 'em in a heartbeat and tell them why.