There actually *is* at least one problem that most people wouldn't notice. Unfortunately, the Mozilla developers have decided that it's not a bug, but a future enhancement. Actually, it's just a part of the W3C spec that they're not supporting for whatever reason.
t all depends on your target market. At my last job, we had 45% of users using netscape or mozilla. Why? I have no clue. They also happened to be on Solaris or IRIX machines. Which was another oddity. Hollywood uses IRIX. We weren't marketing to the film industry.
Very true. I'm basing my numbers on porn sites, which I would guess would be a fairly decent cross-section of Web users. Not perfect, but pretty far reaching. I actually thought the number would be higher too (the number of non-IE users), but I just checked some logs this morning, and they spanned a full month. So, suffice to say, the work that I was doing to work around a Mozilla/Netscape bug promptly stopped.
NO browser is perfect. My point is that IE *does* make an attempt at suporting W3C (you know... document.getElementById()). Mozilla isn't perfect either... it doesn't support *any* of element.click(). I don't know about Opera... I'm not a fan of adware, and my Opera user base is about 0.01% (literally).
1.5%? How stupid! I'd guess there's more people still using netscape 2.0 than 1.5%, and definatly 20% using some version of nestcape 4.x or earlier. You can't run a website well with such stupidity, and you might ought to get training from one of those "Open Source fanatics". Sorry, you're just being dumb.
You're guessing.
I'm looking at server logs with hundreds of thousands of users a day.
I can't blame it for crashing when it tries to load certain sites, since many people are obviously using Bill's Malformed HTML to generate IE-friendly (read "IE-Only) web pages.
Call me nuts, but I don't expect my browser to crash, no matter how ugly what it's trying to parse is. If it can't handle it, it should say so and not crash. NS/Mozilla is still completely unacceptable.
Opera doesn't have to beat IE as a browser, it has to beat Mozilla. Opera is a good browser in ways, but it's got to be a lot better than Mozilla to attract a market.
Ummm... what market? You mean that whopping 1.5% of non-IE users out there right now? Considering that even those people are mostly Open Source fanatics that are living with their parents with an average annual income of $200, I really doubt that's much of a "market".
Opera does follow the W3C standards, in contradiction to IE, which most likely won't display W3C-standard pages properly.
Good troll kid, but IE displays their own standards AND W3C standard pages properly. A hint... if you know what you're talking about before you troll, you're more effective.
Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.
Actually, you stupid, festering pile of shit, if you've been awake any time in the last year or so, you'd realize that being worth 50% of what you were two years ago means that you're one of the strongest players in the tech sector right now.
In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)
Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.
I hereby bestow on you naive post of the day. Congratulations!
> Well, it's worked so far with very technical or very server-based pieces of software. There's never been a successful Open Source software package geared at the general public.
? You mean besides Gnome, KDE, Gimp, Xine, Xmms, AbiWord and OpenOffice (to name a few)?
Exactly. The general public still doesn't use any of those. Only techies. Open Source still hasn't produced anything that's gone mainstream, as far as I know.
Oh, come on... this has always been the case, and I'd argue that it has worked pretty well so far.
Well, it's worked so far with very technical or very server-based pieces of software. There's never been a successful Open Source software package geared at the general public. Why? Open Source developers are elitists and just refuse to acknowledge the needs of "average" people. Netscape is not only used by the general public, but it also has to be supported by average web developers. Netscape developers essentially gave web developers the finger when they decided not to offer any backwards compatibility. I really, really don't think that the average web developer is gonna stand for it.
A. There's no schism. Netscape usage is down in the single percentages. There's essentially one browser out there.
B. How did they "fuck up the Internet"? Web sites today are ten times better than they were 10 years ago. Interactivity is incredible. If we had to wait for Netscape, the web would still look like 1996. IE has been the best thing for the Web.
C. They didn't hijack any standards. They conform to the W3C standards better than Netscape does. Netscape's the one screwing up the "standards".
Ah, I see it now... Open Source developers continue to demand "respect", and continue to isolate them from actual users. Eventually, Open Source developers will develop only to please themselves. At this point, their products become useless. No. If they want to develop Open Source, then by the very definition of what they do, if they want their product to succeed, then they need to listen to the users. Elitist developers, no matter how good they may be, will never be able to develop a truly useful product.
Look at Netscape. They decided to ignore the users clamoring for backwards compatibility because they are purists. Watch it bite them in the ass when web developers turn their back on Netscape, which requires that all DHTML written in the past 4 years or so be re-written.
I do understand the point of having standards. The fact is that a de-facto standard already exists (ie: 95% of all web browsers conform to it), and Netscape just refuses to acknowledge it. One day, it'll be nice if all major browsers work the same way, but the reality has is that if NS actually becomes a player again, it's gonna take another re-write of all client-side code, because for the past few years, the W3C "standard" hasn't been used at all by IE. NS makes the transition very difficult because of the complete lack of backwards compatibility. I understand what they're trying to do, but they're going about it all wrong, and this may be the death of them (the real one).
That's funny.. Mozilla isn't trying to change the standards [w3.org]. Get this... it's actually FOLLOWING THEM!
You obviously don't understand what "de-facto standards" mean. That means that the standards came about by sheer use and popularity. The W3C "standards" are arbitrary standards... a third party that has no control whatsoever over web site creation (other than their own) or browser development. The W3C hasn't been truly influential for a long time. Just because somebody writes something and calls it a "standard" doesn't make it so.
. Reporting bugs is almost an art, and if approached with a humble and helpful attitude can be very helpful.
Humble? By submitting bugs we're helping them, not the other way around. If they ever want to have a useable product, they need to fix their big bugs, period. Fuck being humble. Either the developers fix the bugs or not.
If web developers don't develop their client-side heavy web-sites according to the W3C spec, NS users will continue to be left out in the cold. Who wants to use a browser that can't render a large % of websites? That's pretty damn useless, no matter how well it may be coded.
Obviously, everybody saying "yaay for Netscape" isn't a real web developer. Netscape went out of their way to *not* include any kind of backwards compatibility for any DHTML. 90% of all DHTML written in the past 3 years or so simply doesn't work in NS 6+ because although NS conforms to the W3C specs (as does IE), unlike IE, there's no support for older scripting. I've tested lots of various DHTML, and virtually none of it works with NS. Sure, it'd be nice to see a new browser, but the developers' incredible idealism (the W3C "standards" and none others, whatsoever) is gonna prevent NS from going mainstream.
In addition, the quality fo a laserprinter, even a cheap one, is much better than even a good inkjet. The wet ink thing just doesn't look professional at all. After it dries, ti can smear, bunch up the paper, etc. And the resolution still isn't nearly as good as a laser. I got an Okidata 400e LED printer (similar technology to laser printers) years ago, and I love it. Toner also goes a hell of a lot further than ink for the same price.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The Net is no replacement for books. The ease of publishing on the Net is reason enough *not* to rely on the Net for information... how accurate can it be if a 8 year old can slap up a web page? I'm willing to trust a book that has gone through many editors and reviews and has spent a lot of money to be published than I am some silly web page.
The "information wants to be free" thing is just stupid.
Well, first off, to say that a VB front end is slower than any other kind of front end is pure bullshit. It's just a front end. It's completely irrelevant what the front end is, whether you have 2 or 200 terminals. It's the back end that makes the difference. If you're concerned about speed and locking (which is definately a concern if you have 200 terminals hitting your inventory system at the same time), then the database you use is critical.
Slashdot Mirror
There actually *is* at least one problem that most people wouldn't notice. Unfortunately, the Mozilla developers have decided that it's not a bug, but a future enhancement. Actually, it's just a part of the W3C spec that they're not supporting for whatever reason.
t all depends on your target market. At my last job, we had 45% of users using netscape or mozilla. Why? I have no clue. They also happened to be on Solaris or IRIX machines. Which was another oddity. Hollywood uses IRIX. We weren't marketing to the film industry.
Very true. I'm basing my numbers on porn sites, which I would guess would be a fairly decent cross-section of Web users. Not perfect, but pretty far reaching. I actually thought the number would be higher too (the number of non-IE users), but I just checked some logs this morning, and they spanned a full month. So, suffice to say, the work that I was doing to work around a Mozilla/Netscape bug promptly stopped.
NO browser is perfect. My point is that IE *does* make an attempt at suporting W3C (you know... document.getElementById()). Mozilla isn't perfect either... it doesn't support *any* of element.click(). I don't know about Opera... I'm not a fan of adware, and my Opera user base is about 0.01% (literally).
1.5%? How stupid! I'd guess there's more people still using netscape 2.0 than 1.5%, and definatly 20% using some version of nestcape 4.x or earlier. You can't run a website well with such stupidity, and you might ought to get training from one of those "Open Source fanatics". Sorry, you're just being dumb.
You're guessing.
I'm looking at server logs with hundreds of thousands of users a day.
Now who's "just being dumb"?
I can't blame it for crashing when it tries to load certain sites, since many people are obviously using Bill's Malformed HTML to generate IE-friendly (read "IE-Only) web pages.
Call me nuts, but I don't expect my browser to crash, no matter how ugly what it's trying to parse is. If it can't handle it, it should say so and not crash. NS/Mozilla is still completely unacceptable.
Opera doesn't have to beat IE as a browser, it has to beat Mozilla. Opera is a good browser in ways, but it's got to be a lot better than Mozilla to attract a market.
Ummm... what market? You mean that whopping 1.5% of non-IE users out there right now? Considering that even those people are mostly Open Source fanatics that are living with their parents with an average annual income of $200, I really doubt that's much of a "market".
Opera does follow the W3C standards, in contradiction to IE, which most likely won't display W3C-standard pages properly.
Good troll kid, but IE displays their own standards AND W3C standard pages properly. A hint... if you know what you're talking about before you troll, you're more effective.
Are you actually a moron, or are you lying on purpose?
IBM and MSFT's past two year performance nearly identical
Now go the fuck away and buy some RHAT stock you fucking idiot.
Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.
Actually, you stupid, festering pile of shit, if you've been awake any time in the last year or so, you'd realize that being worth 50% of what you were two years ago means that you're one of the strongest players in the tech sector right now.
Last year Redhat made ~$90 million!!
Wow. And people say that MS spreads "FUD". Next time, try spending a few seconds of research as opposed to believing everything you read, kid.
Redhat lost over $100 million in 2001
In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)
Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.
I hereby bestow on you naive post of the day. Congratulations!
> Well, it's worked so far with very technical or very server-based pieces of software. There's never been a successful Open Source software package geared at the general public.
? You mean besides Gnome, KDE, Gimp, Xine, Xmms, AbiWord and OpenOffice (to name a few)?
Exactly. The general public still doesn't use any of those. Only techies. Open Source still hasn't produced anything that's gone mainstream, as far as I know.
Oh, come on... this has always been the case, and I'd argue that it has worked pretty well so far.
Well, it's worked so far with very technical or very server-based pieces of software. There's never been a successful Open Source software package geared at the general public. Why? Open Source developers are elitists and just refuse to acknowledge the needs of "average" people. Netscape is not only used by the general public, but it also has to be supported by average web developers. Netscape developers essentially gave web developers the finger when they decided not to offer any backwards compatibility. I really, really don't think that the average web developer is gonna stand for it.
A. There's no schism. Netscape usage is down in the single percentages. There's essentially one browser out there.
B. How did they "fuck up the Internet"? Web sites today are ten times better than they were 10 years ago. Interactivity is incredible. If we had to wait for Netscape, the web would still look like 1996. IE has been the best thing for the Web.
C. They didn't hijack any standards. They conform to the W3C standards better than Netscape does. Netscape's the one screwing up the "standards".
Ah, I see it now... Open Source developers continue to demand "respect", and continue to isolate them from actual users. Eventually, Open Source developers will develop only to please themselves. At this point, their products become useless. No. If they want to develop Open Source, then by the very definition of what they do, if they want their product to succeed, then they need to listen to the users. Elitist developers, no matter how good they may be, will never be able to develop a truly useful product.
Look at Netscape. They decided to ignore the users clamoring for backwards compatibility because they are purists. Watch it bite them in the ass when web developers turn their back on Netscape, which requires that all DHTML written in the past 4 years or so be re-written.
I do understand the point of having standards. The fact is that a de-facto standard already exists (ie: 95% of all web browsers conform to it), and Netscape just refuses to acknowledge it. One day, it'll be nice if all major browsers work the same way, but the reality has is that if NS actually becomes a player again, it's gonna take another re-write of all client-side code, because for the past few years, the W3C "standard" hasn't been used at all by IE. NS makes the transition very difficult because of the complete lack of backwards compatibility. I understand what they're trying to do, but they're going about it all wrong, and this may be the death of them (the real one).
It's too late to affect de-facto standards
That's funny.. Mozilla isn't trying to change the standards [w3.org]. Get this... it's actually FOLLOWING THEM!
You obviously don't understand what "de-facto standards" mean. That means that the standards came about by sheer use and popularity. The W3C "standards" are arbitrary standards... a third party that has no control whatsoever over web site creation (other than their own) or browser development. The W3C hasn't been truly influential for a long time. Just because somebody writes something and calls it a "standard" doesn't make it so.
. Reporting bugs is almost an art, and if approached with a humble and helpful attitude can be very helpful.
Humble? By submitting bugs we're helping them, not the other way around. If they ever want to have a useable product, they need to fix their big bugs, period. Fuck being humble. Either the developers fix the bugs or not.
If web developers don't develop their client-side heavy web-sites according to the W3C spec, NS users will continue to be left out in the cold. Who wants to use a browser that can't render a large % of websites? That's pretty damn useless, no matter how well it may be coded.
Obviously, everybody saying "yaay for Netscape" isn't a real web developer. Netscape went out of their way to *not* include any kind of backwards compatibility for any DHTML. 90% of all DHTML written in the past 3 years or so simply doesn't work in NS 6+ because although NS conforms to the W3C specs (as does IE), unlike IE, there's no support for older scripting. I've tested lots of various DHTML, and virtually none of it works with NS. Sure, it'd be nice to see a new browser, but the developers' incredible idealism (the W3C "standards" and none others, whatsoever) is gonna prevent NS from going mainstream.
In addition, the quality fo a laserprinter, even a cheap one, is much better than even a good inkjet. The wet ink thing just doesn't look professional at all. After it dries, ti can smear, bunch up the paper, etc. And the resolution still isn't nearly as good as a laser. I got an Okidata 400e LED printer (similar technology to laser printers) years ago, and I love it. Toner also goes a hell of a lot further than ink for the same price.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The Net is no replacement for books. The ease of publishing on the Net is reason enough *not* to rely on the Net for information... how accurate can it be if a 8 year old can slap up a web page? I'm willing to trust a book that has gone through many editors and reviews and has spent a lot of money to be published than I am some silly web page.
The "information wants to be free" thing is just stupid.
Is there a particular reason that you inventoried every fucking computer component that you own in this post?
...sell the fucking kid.
Well, first off, to say that a VB front end is slower than any other kind of front end is pure bullshit. It's just a front end. It's completely irrelevant what the front end is, whether you have 2 or 200 terminals. It's the back end that makes the difference. If you're concerned about speed and locking (which is definately a concern if you have 200 terminals hitting your inventory system at the same time), then the database you use is critical.