I don't think the bible can tell me what is all in a cubic foot of soil. Ego or not, perhaps science is no more based on ego than religion is based on theological imperialism.
I basically agree, however, there is an increasing demand (at least in my company) for intranet web-based applications. Static content is fine, but having a web application is a great way to distribute functionality without the overhead of installing programs on client machines. Since most systems nowadays have web browsers, there is (usually) no additional work to be done. Just give them a URL. The problem as I see it is that the standard form elements provided are too simplistic. Simple text boxes, radio buttons, and drop down lists are fine but are limiting. Also, it was only recently that a standardized document object model was introduced by W3C. That, with a good scripting language, can lead to beautiful and functional applications that people can use in a familiar environment.
IE5 provides a nice platform for web applications. A well designed object model (proprietary, but it is well done) with generally solid scripting has allowed us to develop some really cool web pages. Given the newer standards released by W3C, Mozilla and other non-IE browsers should give Microsoft a run for their (lots of) money.
I was simply reversing your logic. Of course, Linux isn't the perfect solution. Neither is NT. However, most (not all) would agree that NT isn't quite as stable as Linux. I have yet to crash a Linux release kernel. I cannot say the same about a release NT kernel.
I just last night installed Red Hat 6.0 on my 300Mhz K6-2 with a G200 AGP. It runs, although I'm sure most of the acceleration features that could be found in a windoze driver doesn't exist in the XF86_SVGA server.
I can crash Netscape 4.51 under Linux simply by cutting text out of a web page and trying to paste it into a mail message. I'm used to doing a SHIFT-INS to paste, and this can hang it so that I have to kill it via xterm. That, and just random hangs.
Hey hey hey, as much as I don't like supporting M$ products, spreading FUD about IE5 isn't going to help. CSS1 generally works fine. The DOM is proprietary but it DOES work, and the W3C DOM spec doesn't look all that different from IE's. Hard coded UI, but IE5 does allow you to customize the button bar. As far as I've seen, PNG is not broken.
Granted, IE is a winzode product, and it does support many proprietary things. Overall, however, it runs much better than Netscape (read:not mozilla) 4.51 under Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? The show rocks.
I don't think the bible can tell me what is all in a cubic foot of soil. Ego or not, perhaps science is no more based on ego than religion is based on theological imperialism.
I basically agree, however, there is an increasing demand (at least in my company) for intranet web-based applications. Static content is fine, but having a web application is a great way to distribute functionality without the overhead of installing programs on client machines. Since most systems nowadays have web browsers, there is (usually) no additional work to be done. Just give them a URL. The problem as I see it is that the standard form elements provided are too simplistic. Simple text boxes, radio buttons, and drop down lists are fine but are limiting. Also, it was only recently that a standardized document object model was introduced by W3C. That, with a good scripting language, can lead to beautiful and functional applications that people can use in a familiar environment.
IE5 provides a nice platform for web applications. A well designed object model (proprietary, but it is well done) with generally solid scripting has allowed us to develop some really cool web pages. Given the newer standards released by W3C, Mozilla and other non-IE browsers should give Microsoft a run for their (lots of) money.
what do you call Mozilla then?
Pre-Alpha code.
I was simply reversing your logic. Of course, Linux isn't the perfect solution. Neither is NT. However, most (not all) would agree that NT isn't quite as stable as Linux. I have yet to crash a Linux release kernel. I cannot say the same about a release NT kernel.
Yes Virginia, there is a Blue Screen of Death.
So when I'm running NT, and the screen suddenly turns blue, it's not NT?
Sure as hell ain't in mid-Michigan.
Yeah, the ad is lame, but the Pizza Hut girl is cute!
I just last night installed Red Hat 6.0 on my 300Mhz K6-2 with a G200 AGP. It runs, although I'm sure most of the acceleration features that could be found in a windoze driver doesn't exist in the XF86_SVGA server.
I can crash Netscape 4.51 under Linux simply by cutting text out of a web page and trying to paste it into a mail message. I'm used to doing a SHIFT-INS to paste, and this can hang it so that I have to kill it via xterm. That, and just random hangs.
Hey hey hey, as much as I don't like supporting M$ products, spreading FUD about IE5 isn't going to help. CSS1 generally works fine. The DOM is proprietary but it DOES work, and the W3C DOM spec doesn't look all that different from IE's. Hard coded UI, but IE5 does allow you to customize the button bar. As far as I've seen, PNG is not broken.
Granted, IE is a winzode product, and it does support many proprietary things. Overall, however, it runs much better than Netscape (read:not mozilla) 4.51 under Linux.
I suppose the UN already registered www.blackhelicopters.com for itself.
Simply associating with people and conforming are two different things.
Like many, there are a whole bunch of Joel-era episodes that I have not seen. How about a Slashdot MST3K tape trading section?
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed
Isn't Redhat now shipping with Qt/KDE?
And if you continue to spend your Friday nights obsessing over the openness of the Qt license, that situation probably won't change anytime soon.
Pfffft! That's for Thursday night. Friday nights are for reading RFC's.
Does this mean that we should refer to him as DrRMS? How about GNU/DrRMS? :)
Confuse-O-Cat?