Is this a joke? Laws are not "Science" or "useful Arts" as defined in the Constitution. They are practical communications between the government and its people. Since the government is both serves its people and is funded by its people, it cannot hold a copyright. This has been recognized at the Federal level for... oh... ever. ( 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works)
I'm all for state powers, but this is simply rediculous. Even if we assume a valid legal theory exists that allows states to hold copyrights over works created by public officers, laws themselves are still not considered works of art or science any more than a memo reminding my wife to get milk is considered copyrightable.
Of course, being a lawyer and/or lawmaker is a skilled trade. So the argument could be made that the text is the result of those skills. I still don't think it can be copyrighted, but let's say a judge disagrees with me. Well then, what of fair use? The people must have access to laws in order to obey them. Thus laws must be communicated in the open to all citizens under the fair use doctrine.
Under the 4 point balance test, the nature of the works (i.e. laws) is factual and thus not allowed copyright protection. (see: Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates) The purpose of reproducing the laws is that it is information required by the public. The amount copied is irrelevant in this case, as the entirity of the law is required information for every citizen. Last but not least, the value of the law should only be in its improvement upon society, not a dollar value placed upon its reproduction. Coming back to the point the citizens PAID to have those laws created, it only follows that they should not be further charged to obtain copies of them.
It's XP. The VMM was coded for back in the days when 64MB was a lot. In Windows 2000, the VMM would completely swap out an app when you minimized it. This had some interesting effects when you were running, say, an enterprise application server with hundreds of megs of data loaded into it. If you accidentally minimized it, you were going to be waiting a while to see the output window.
Microsoft fixed this somewhat with Windows XP. The "swap on minimize" was effectively removed, but the memory manager was still WAY too aggressive with its swap procedures. If you haven't used an app in a while, you can expect that it has been completely swapped out even if you had more than enough memory to keep it available.
That's why the fastest configuration for Windows is to load up on physical memory and turn off the swap. Your programs will respond WAY faster. Especially programs created in modern OOP environments where heap management tends to be hidden from the OS. The OS will blindly swap, not realizing that the next garbage collection is going to swap all that memory back in.
If we were talking about general x86 DOS emulation, I would agree with you. But DOSBox is tuned for video games. Which makes it superior for game applications. Of course, I have been known to be wrong.:-)
The star next to my name is where the 2 minute deadline comes from. Subscribers get early access to view stories. Which is nice, because that gives me a chance to beat out the trolls for first post, thus making it worth my while to comment. Since comments far down the page rarely get read, there is little point in posting if you don't start writing until after the story is live. The exact amount of time available tends to vary. Sometimes it's as long as a half hour, sometimes it's barely a few minutes. Given the time sensitivity of this story (i.e. Google Chrome's launch) I correctly guessed that I'd have very little time to prepare a post before it went live.
The half-hour stories are fun, though. I am able to post a huge WALL of text with references and everything. Which invariably causes someone to wonder aloud how I can type so bloody fast! The ruder ones among us tend to accuse me of various forms of conspiracy.:-(
Of course, there's always life imposing its own deadlines on Slashdot posts, but that's just... um... life?:-P
Keep in mind that there are also the negative consequences of getting posts high up the thread. I've stuck my foot in my mouth more than once. Which can get rather embarrassing when you have the most prominent post on the page. So use the first post wisely, I guess.;-)
not as much as saying "the masses" (to imply everybody is dumber than yourself) so call it even on that point.
Seriously, did I kick your dog or something? Nothing was implied by the statement other than "this text has more mass appeal than that text".
don't rely on people following links and reading a months-old long-ass thread.
Let's be clear here:
1. I quoted EXACTLY what I "called". While I wish I could break down the context for everyone who didn't read the summary and skimmed through (no negative context implied; many people like to read Slashdot for the comments) I do not always have the time. Other readers are able to comprehend the context, even without linking through.
2. The previous post was YESTERDAY. Huge long thread. Participated in by most people who cared about Google Chrome. While not everyone would catch the context, I was able to rely on the recentness of the previous thread to help place this in context for most readers. It would have been rude of me to be crowing about something that happened a month ago and not at least provide more context.
Now, I'm sorry you misread the text. I will endeavor to make it clearer in the future. But I will not take criticism for your own invention of negative connotations where none exist.
For the love of web standards and all that is holy, I care!
(/me jumps up and down trying to get attention)
Thankfully. This way I don't have to double the traffic through my slow DSL+WiFi link.
That's one opinion. Personally, I prefer using Bittorrent to download large files. The experience is superior in my mind to a straight HTTP download. (Which is itself, surprisingly, superior to an FTP download. I blame poorly configured servers for that one.)
It wouldn't have killed them to share the files through Bittorrent in addition to HTTP. It would have saved on bandwidth bills and made the Bittorrent lovers (like myself) happy.:-)
The First Decade includes pretty much every C&C game ever, so I guess you could say that your purchase just lost some value.
Despite my jokes, I'm not too worried about it. I got the collection for less than $10 during a CompUSA closing sale. I got it along with some Linux game development books that I keep meaning to read...
somehow missed the first Red Alert game, only starting with RA2
I remember when RA came out. I was so POed that we didn't get Tiberium Sun as promised. IMHO, RA was much weaker than the original C&C, but it was none the less well received by the gaming public.:-)
As eddwee said, each disc has a separate campaign. It was done as an early form of game sharing, long before the advent of downloading playable game stubs over WiFi. If you wanted to play a modem game with a friend, you could give them one of the two CDs and you could both play. Otherwise they probably would have crammed everything onto a single CD.
1. The Tiberium Dawn link does not render correctly in Webkit. (Read: Google Chrome)
2. The Red Alert download link uses HTTP transfers rather than Bittorrent for 2x500MB files. And it was just posted on Slashdot.
3. I just purchased the C&C Collection Pack, you insensitive clods!
...
(Checks packaging)
Whew. Never mind. The C&C Collection Pack only has RA2. So thus I avoid the typical Slashdot failure!
Err... other than purchasing a "collection" that's missing the most defining games of the series that is. Hey! It was on sale! (pause) You know what? On second thought, let's just forget about the collection thing, shall we? It will be our little secret, Comrade. Da?
In all seriousness, I'm glad to see EA take this step. Old games are easily lost to the sands of time, the trials of moving, the march of operating systems, and the bateria that eats CDs. Embracing the "abandonware" mentality legally means that the game is preserved both physically and in the hearts and minds of the new generation of players. It also limits the ability of companies to continually repackage old works, thus forcing them to move forward with new titles rather than backward with the old. So kudos to EA!
That's always a fair criticism, even though writing is somewhat difficult when one is on a 2 minute deadline.:-)
Of course, part of the problem was my decision to forgo explaining that statement in favor of focusing on more interesting information for the masses. Crowing may be fun, but it can make one look like an ass if too much of it is done. (One might even make the argument that my one-liner was too much.)
I wasn't calling the release of the browser. I was calling the reason why it was released. Since Mozilla's comments reflect my own from yesterday, my comment was very much on topic.
Good grief. I didn't quote that particular section for my amusement. (Though it was rather amusing.:-P)
That has some rather negative effects on the ability of the VM to inject dynamic code, not to mention the delay caused by compiling the Javascript to MSIL at runtime. Javascript is best optimized using a JIT directly on a 1:1 Javascript intermediary that is suitable for both compiling and interpreting. The advantage to this scheme is that the initial load is fast, initial execution is fast, but long-running processes can take the full compile "hit" and get a major boost in performance.
Indeed, it even wants IE to perform well with Gmail and the rest. It's just that it has very limited control over this. That's why Google's been frustrated and it is launching this Chrome browser.
For those of you who are interested, Chrome is supposed to be launching later today. Apparently around 11 AM PDT to coincide with the press conference. (Any moment now...) For those of you who can't wait, PCWorld seems to have figured out how to finagle screenshots out of Google's 404 page.
For those of you who didn't get to see it, the comic book is now available for viewing.
Not only that, but I'd like to point out that process isolation comes at a cost. Many users were rejoicing yesterday when it was announced that Google Chrome would have process isolation. Google was very up front about the fact that the browser would use MORE memory as a result. However, the security, memory cleanup, process tracking, and isolation features were all considered worth it.
So give IE a break here. If you want to complain, complain about the fact that it STILL doesn't support the standards and that it STILL uses that God-awful IE7 interface.
Answer me this: How would special features of a webapp that only support standards-compliant web browsers be a problem? I see no contradiction in terms. Only more "encouragement" for IE to meet the standards or get the heck out of the market.
They did get the memo. It was dated 1997. After that, they got the other memo. You know, the one that said thanks to modern standards we can make complex applications in the browser now? Didn't you get the memo?
DragonTHC pretty much nailed it. Nearly every distribution of Linux, BSD, Solaris, <insert your favorite Operating System here> ships with a web server. The darn things are a dime a dozen and can be found on freeware websites, as example code (Java, Python, Perl, C#, take your pick), as part of webapp servers (e.g. J2EE), as programming assignments, etc.
The only real reason to run Apache in a VM is if there are specific applications you wish to configure before deploying them in a production system. e.g. If you're looking at deploying Wordpress or a web forum, you may want to try a test install before sending it to your live server. In that case, the best answer for which OS to run in the VM is: Whatever you're planning on deploying the app on.
Otherwise there is precious little difference between deploying a web server in a VM and deploying it on your desktop. (Regardless of what OS you use.) You can pick and choose to your heart's content. You can even run Apache, IIS, and J2EE on the same box without clobbering each other. (Just make sure you configure the ports to not conflict.)
Heck, I've caught myself running as many as three web servers simultaneously while doing development. (Don't ask. You probably don't want to know.) When I'm done with them, I just shut them down and forget about them until the next time I need them.
So go pick your favorite OS and have fun. There's no need to shy from any of them, especially when you are using a virtual machine. And remember! FreeBSD is the Power to Serve(TM). </kidding!>
If you read that sentence in context, you will understand it to mean that websites will add special features to their webapps that will use the standards supported by standards-compliant web browsers. (Which IE is not one of.)
The Unix Wars were marked by infighting and propriety lock-in. The second browser wars are marked by standards, open source, and cooperation. The two are not even remotely the same.
Oh hoh hoh! Did we just manage to dig up a Google employee? Interesting how suddenly there is a Google Books link to the comic, published by Google itself...
It's not that the new browser is not technologically interesting, but it does not leapfrog the competition to any significant degree. I'm still excited about seeing it, but we don't really need it. Google's marketing muscle is far more impressive. (And hopefully gets this browser into circulation at Microsoft's expense.);-)
FireFox and Flash 9, at least. Safari (WebKit) is pursuing its own highly optimized VM that appears to perform better in certain circumstances. It's not clear what the roadmap for Opera's Javascript engine is.
That's because Flash 9 received a brand new Virtual Machine. FireFox was given the code for it (it's called Tamarin), but it has not yet made it into a release. Once it does, FireFox and Flash 9 should show similar performance profiles.
Previous versions of Flash were absolutely terrible from a performance perspective. So the entire JS-language community is slowly moving forward.:-)
Ecmascript (Javascript) 4.0 seems to be dead in the water, so Gears looks like the best way to get AJAX/DHTML beyond the limits imposed by the lack of threads in 3.0.
ECMAScript 4.0 is a syntactical change. It does not offer new features like multi-threading. Multi-threading is more the domain of the WHATWG APIs. There has recently been quite a bit of talk over a "Worker" API that would allow threads to be spun off into the background.
FWIW, Gears is effectively a Google-specific implementation of many of the WHATWG APIs. It appears to be the intent for Google to get the technology out now, then Gears can be the optional basis for implementing storage and multi-threading features when other browser makers are ready.
They've been trying to push applications on the web, and the speed hasn't been completely impressive.
Safari, FireFox, and Opera (in that order) have been showing marked improvements in Javascript performance. To the point where Javascript performance is a major point of competition. Microsoft's JScript engine is currently the slowest Javascript engine on the browser market. (As I can personally attest after running sophisticated sorting algorithms through it.) So the problem still comes back to Internet Explorer.
Actually the question on my mind is what's going to happen to Mozilla?
This news comes shortly after the renewal of the Mozilla contract. I would speculate that the timing is not accidental. Releasing Google Chrome after the contract renewal helps belay fears that Google will cancel the contract. (And thus prevents Mozilla from making alternative plans.)
Google wants to target Microsoft, not FireFox. As such, there is nothing wrong with their current deal. Browsers like Chrome, FireFox, Opera, and Safari can co-exist with each other. Just as they do today. (FireFox and Opera both have deals with Google. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Safari also has the same deal.) The key is for these browsers to continue to nip away at the massive marketshare currently held by Microsoft.
Such a large marketshare easily leaves room for four, five, six, or many more browsers! And more competition means that the technology will only improve rather than stagnate. Which is a very important requirement when your business relies on advanced browser technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a joke? Laws are not "Science" or "useful Arts" as defined in the Constitution. They are practical communications between the government and its people. Since the government is both serves its people and is funded by its people, it cannot hold a copyright. This has been recognized at the Federal level for... oh... ever. ( 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works)
I'm all for state powers, but this is simply rediculous. Even if we assume a valid legal theory exists that allows states to hold copyrights over works created by public officers, laws themselves are still not considered works of art or science any more than a memo reminding my wife to get milk is considered copyrightable.
Of course, being a lawyer and/or lawmaker is a skilled trade. So the argument could be made that the text is the result of those skills. I still don't think it can be copyrighted, but let's say a judge disagrees with me. Well then, what of fair use? The people must have access to laws in order to obey them. Thus laws must be communicated in the open to all citizens under the fair use doctrine.
Under the 4 point balance test, the nature of the works (i.e. laws) is factual and thus not allowed copyright protection. (see: Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates) The purpose of reproducing the laws is that it is information required by the public. The amount copied is irrelevant in this case, as the entirity of the law is required information for every citizen. Last but not least, the value of the law should only be in its improvement upon society, not a dollar value placed upon its reproduction. Coming back to the point the citizens PAID to have those laws created, it only follows that they should not be further charged to obtain copies of them.
It's XP. The VMM was coded for back in the days when 64MB was a lot. In Windows 2000, the VMM would completely swap out an app when you minimized it. This had some interesting effects when you were running, say, an enterprise application server with hundreds of megs of data loaded into it. If you accidentally minimized it, you were going to be waiting a while to see the output window.
Microsoft fixed this somewhat with Windows XP. The "swap on minimize" was effectively removed, but the memory manager was still WAY too aggressive with its swap procedures. If you haven't used an app in a while, you can expect that it has been completely swapped out even if you had more than enough memory to keep it available.
That's why the fastest configuration for Windows is to load up on physical memory and turn off the swap. Your programs will respond WAY faster. Especially programs created in modern OOP environments where heap management tends to be hidden from the OS. The OS will blindly swap, not realizing that the next garbage collection is going to swap all that memory back in.
If we were talking about general x86 DOS emulation, I would agree with you. But DOSBox is tuned for video games. Which makes it superior for game applications. Of course, I have been known to be wrong. :-)
The star next to my name is where the 2 minute deadline comes from. Subscribers get early access to view stories. Which is nice, because that gives me a chance to beat out the trolls for first post, thus making it worth my while to comment. Since comments far down the page rarely get read, there is little point in posting if you don't start writing until after the story is live. The exact amount of time available tends to vary. Sometimes it's as long as a half hour, sometimes it's barely a few minutes. Given the time sensitivity of this story (i.e. Google Chrome's launch) I correctly guessed that I'd have very little time to prepare a post before it went live.
The half-hour stories are fun, though. I am able to post a huge WALL of text with references and everything. Which invariably causes someone to wonder aloud how I can type so bloody fast! The ruder ones among us tend to accuse me of various forms of conspiracy. :-(
Of course, there's always life imposing its own deadlines on Slashdot posts, but that's just... um... life? :-P
Keep in mind that there are also the negative consequences of getting posts high up the thread. I've stuck my foot in my mouth more than once. Which can get rather embarrassing when you have the most prominent post on the page. So use the first post wisely, I guess. ;-)
Seriously, did I kick your dog or something? Nothing was implied by the statement other than "this text has more mass appeal than that text".
Let's be clear here:
1. I quoted EXACTLY what I "called". While I wish I could break down the context for everyone who didn't read the summary and skimmed through (no negative context implied; many people like to read Slashdot for the comments) I do not always have the time. Other readers are able to comprehend the context, even without linking through.
2. The previous post was YESTERDAY. Huge long thread. Participated in by most people who cared about Google Chrome. While not everyone would catch the context, I was able to rely on the recentness of the previous thread to help place this in context for most readers. It would have been rude of me to be crowing about something that happened a month ago and not at least provide more context.
Now, I'm sorry you misread the text. I will endeavor to make it clearer in the future. But I will not take criticism for your own invention of negative connotations where none exist.
For the love of web standards and all that is holy, I care!
(/me jumps up and down trying to get attention)
That's one opinion. Personally, I prefer using Bittorrent to download large files. The experience is superior in my mind to a straight HTTP download. (Which is itself, surprisingly, superior to an FTP download. I blame poorly configured servers for that one.)
It wouldn't have killed them to share the files through Bittorrent in addition to HTTP. It would have saved on bandwidth bills and made the Bittorrent lovers (like myself) happy. :-)
Despite my jokes, I'm not too worried about it. I got the collection for less than $10 during a CompUSA closing sale. I got it along with some Linux game development books that I keep meaning to read...
I remember when RA came out. I was so POed that we didn't get Tiberium Sun as promised. IMHO, RA was much weaker than the original C&C, but it was none the less well received by the gaming public. :-)
Merry Christmas, you insensitive clod!
DOSBox is simply an incredible emulator. I never thought I'd see the day when DOS would be as well emulated as the classic computers of yore. :-)
As eddwee said, each disc has a separate campaign. It was done as an early form of game sharing, long before the advent of downloading playable game stubs over WiFi. If you wanted to play a modem game with a friend, you could give them one of the two CDs and you could both play. Otherwise they probably would have crammed everything onto a single CD.
Oh failure, let me count the ways:
1. The Tiberium Dawn link does not render correctly in Webkit. (Read: Google Chrome)
2. The Red Alert download link uses HTTP transfers rather than Bittorrent for 2x500MB files. And it was just posted on Slashdot.
3. I just purchased the C&C Collection Pack, you insensitive clods!
(Checks packaging)
Whew. Never mind. The C&C Collection Pack only has RA2. So thus I avoid the typical Slashdot failure!
Err... other than purchasing a "collection" that's missing the most defining games of the series that is. Hey! It was on sale! (pause) You know what? On second thought, let's just forget about the collection thing, shall we? It will be our little secret, Comrade. Da?
In all seriousness, I'm glad to see EA take this step. Old games are easily lost to the sands of time, the trials of moving, the march of operating systems, and the bateria that eats CDs. Embracing the "abandonware" mentality legally means that the game is preserved both physically and in the hearts and minds of the new generation of players. It also limits the ability of companies to continually repackage old works, thus forcing them to move forward with new titles rather than backward with the old. So kudos to EA!
That's always a fair criticism, even though writing is somewhat difficult when one is on a 2 minute deadline. :-)
Of course, part of the problem was my decision to forgo explaining that statement in favor of focusing on more interesting information for the masses. Crowing may be fun, but it can make one look like an ass if too much of it is done. (One might even make the argument that my one-liner was too much.)
I wasn't calling the release of the browser. I was calling the reason why it was released. Since Mozilla's comments reflect my own from yesterday, my comment was very much on topic.
Good grief. I didn't quote that particular section for my amusement. (Though it was rather amusing. :-P)
That has some rather negative effects on the ability of the VM to inject dynamic code, not to mention the delay caused by compiling the Javascript to MSIL at runtime. Javascript is best optimized using a JIT directly on a 1:1 Javascript intermediary that is suitable for both compiling and interpreting. The advantage to this scheme is that the initial load is fast, initial execution is fast, but long-running processes can take the full compile "hit" and get a major boost in performance.
FYI, the browser is now available. Feel free to promote the Firehose story:
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=1142843
Did I call it, or what? ;-)
For those of you who are interested, Chrome is supposed to be launching later today. Apparently around 11 AM PDT to coincide with the press conference. (Any moment now...) For those of you who can't wait, PCWorld seems to have figured out how to finagle screenshots out of Google's 404 page.
For those of you who didn't get to see it, the comic book is now available for viewing.
Not only that, but I'd like to point out that process isolation comes at a cost. Many users were rejoicing yesterday when it was announced that Google Chrome would have process isolation. Google was very up front about the fact that the browser would use MORE memory as a result. However, the security, memory cleanup, process tracking, and isolation features were all considered worth it.
So give IE a break here. If you want to complain, complain about the fact that it STILL doesn't support the standards and that it STILL uses that God-awful IE7 interface.
Answer me this: How would special features of a webapp that only support standards-compliant web browsers be a problem? I see no contradiction in terms. Only more "encouragement" for IE to meet the standards or get the heck out of the market.
They did get the memo. It was dated 1997. After that, they got the other memo. You know, the one that said thanks to modern standards we can make complex applications in the browser now? Didn't you get the memo?
DragonTHC pretty much nailed it. Nearly every distribution of Linux, BSD, Solaris, <insert your favorite Operating System here> ships with a web server. The darn things are a dime a dozen and can be found on freeware websites, as example code (Java, Python, Perl, C#, take your pick), as part of webapp servers (e.g. J2EE), as programming assignments, etc.
The only real reason to run Apache in a VM is if there are specific applications you wish to configure before deploying them in a production system. e.g. If you're looking at deploying Wordpress or a web forum, you may want to try a test install before sending it to your live server. In that case, the best answer for which OS to run in the VM is: Whatever you're planning on deploying the app on.
Otherwise there is precious little difference between deploying a web server in a VM and deploying it on your desktop. (Regardless of what OS you use.) You can pick and choose to your heart's content. You can even run Apache, IIS, and J2EE on the same box without clobbering each other. (Just make sure you configure the ports to not conflict.)
Heck, I've caught myself running as many as three web servers simultaneously while doing development. (Don't ask. You probably don't want to know.) When I'm done with them, I just shut them down and forget about them until the next time I need them.
So go pick your favorite OS and have fun. There's no need to shy from any of them, especially when you are using a virtual machine. And remember! FreeBSD is the Power to Serve(TM). </kidding!>
If you read that sentence in context, you will understand it to mean that websites will add special features to their webapps that will use the standards supported by standards-compliant web browsers. (Which IE is not one of.)
The Unix Wars were marked by infighting and propriety lock-in. The second browser wars are marked by standards, open source, and cooperation. The two are not even remotely the same.
Oh hoh hoh! Did we just manage to dig up a Google employee? Interesting how suddenly there is a Google Books link to the comic, published by Google itself...
It's not that the new browser is not technologically interesting, but it does not leapfrog the competition to any significant degree. I'm still excited about seeing it, but we don't really need it. Google's marketing muscle is far more impressive. (And hopefully gets this browser into circulation at Microsoft's expense.) ;-)
FireFox and Flash 9, at least. Safari (WebKit) is pursuing its own highly optimized VM that appears to perform better in certain circumstances. It's not clear what the roadmap for Opera's Javascript engine is.
That's because Flash 9 received a brand new Virtual Machine. FireFox was given the code for it (it's called Tamarin), but it has not yet made it into a release. Once it does, FireFox and Flash 9 should show similar performance profiles.
Previous versions of Flash were absolutely terrible from a performance perspective. So the entire JS-language community is slowly moving forward. :-)
ECMAScript 4.0 is a syntactical change. It does not offer new features like multi-threading. Multi-threading is more the domain of the WHATWG APIs. There has recently been quite a bit of talk over a "Worker" API that would allow threads to be spun off into the background.
FWIW, Gears is effectively a Google-specific implementation of many of the WHATWG APIs. It appears to be the intent for Google to get the technology out now, then Gears can be the optional basis for implementing storage and multi-threading features when other browser makers are ready.
Safari, FireFox, and Opera (in that order) have been showing marked improvements in Javascript performance. To the point where Javascript performance is a major point of competition. Microsoft's JScript engine is currently the slowest Javascript engine on the browser market. (As I can personally attest after running sophisticated sorting algorithms through it.) So the problem still comes back to Internet Explorer.
This news comes shortly after the renewal of the Mozilla contract. I would speculate that the timing is not accidental. Releasing Google Chrome after the contract renewal helps belay fears that Google will cancel the contract. (And thus prevents Mozilla from making alternative plans.)
Google wants to target Microsoft, not FireFox. As such, there is nothing wrong with their current deal. Browsers like Chrome, FireFox, Opera, and Safari can co-exist with each other. Just as they do today. (FireFox and Opera both have deals with Google. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Safari also has the same deal.) The key is for these browsers to continue to nip away at the massive marketshare currently held by Microsoft.
Such a large marketshare easily leaves room for four, five, six, or many more browsers! And more competition means that the technology will only improve rather than stagnate. Which is a very important requirement when your business relies on advanced browser technology.