I look at a bicycle and see how it's built. Now I "make my own bicycle" because I'm not going to pay for the bicycle that's allready built and it's got the same curves, the same colors, and the same engineering behind it. A perfect replica, because I don't know how to do it originaly, I just copy everything they did, using the same materials because I know that's what works.
I can copy a bicycle, but I can't copy a program?
I know what your going to say: You didn't do any work copying the program, the bicycle took work to build and construct, blah blah blah.
By that rational, if copying software were harder to do and it's something I had to work at, then it's legal?
I don't think the issue here is the work that went into it. It could take me 5 seconds to copy something, or 5 years to copy something. The point is, the manufacturer isn't going to get the money that they are charging for the product (bicyle or software) because I'm not going to pay it. I'm either not going to have one, or I'm going to copy it.
>The comparison is to books or records, not to >bicycles and cars.
So if I like a band, but I can't afford to pay for the album, I'm going to write my own music? If I like an Author, but can't afford the book, and I'm going to write my own? This most certainly is a comparison to bikes and cars. If software can be "stolen" then it's not an idea. I don't believe ideas can be stolen, they can only be copied.
I completely agree with you. I started with slack, and I still run it, and all my friends that are interested in it, I don't have a problem giving them a copy because I KNOW that it's going to teach them something. At first that's what I saw linux as, something else that was alien and new. Now I see it as more reliable and secure.
In a nutshell, I think slack should be started with. I still use it because I'm so familiar with it, and there is a certain thing about me that stays with one linage (ie: Marlboro, Levi's, or Saturn). I also have the time to do the "mundane" things because administrating linux isn't my job, it's something I run at home for stability and security.... probably also why I drive a stick. heheh.
If the standard wasn't it place (even though various versions of it were available), why did MS try to implement into IE3 -- because as it is, the IE3 CSS support is broken to the point of hiding valid content with valid CSS even if the CSS code wasn't meant to do that.
I don't know, I don't work for them
I think moves like this are again only aimed at PHBs to get the product supported, but do little for the web developer or end consumer.
Well said! I'm supporting the WaSP myself, and I'm hoping that we can get a standard HTML/XML parser "lib" and have every browser include it to display the content. Let them do anything they want to the rest of the GUI.
1. I never use em, no need, it can't hurt me if I don't touch it right?
2. I thought that NN3 didn't have any css support, but I used the "close to NO" just incase someone knew something that I didn't (there are quite a bunch of people like that)
3. When you have a large audience you have to cover all your bases, so you have to do all that "stupid shit" so you know it looks the same everywhere
I've just learned over the years that it's better to make a page with the added functionality for the users of new tech that is also completely backward compatible. Yeah, it's a bitch, but that's what I get paid for.
IE3? What the hell are you thinking? IE3 made a valiant effort to be css compliant. The standard wasn't there yet, so things don't work exactly right, but it's better than NN3 which has close to NO css support. NN4 was worse than IE3 because externally linked css crashed it. Not until 4.5 came out was that fixed. IE4 and 5 have the best so far as far as I'm concerned.
I think your thinking CSS-P. IE3 doesn't support that because it was practically not even invented yet. But for christ sake man, give credit where credit is due.
Granted CSS (esp css2) is not completely supported on any major platform, and god knows I want it to succeed. I think table layout is the most inconvenient method of placement there is, but what is the big deal? Why not include your style sheet, and then put some font tags in for backward (NN3) compatibility?? Include your css-p div's below the/html, hide them from your "stupid" browsers like ie3 and nn3 by putting style or open ended table tags around them with JS, and be done with it.
The way I understand it if IE doesn't know how to download something, it defaults to binary, and Netscape defaults to ascii. Althought this makes sense, I'm not sure, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong
Slashdot Mirror
I look at a bicycle and see how it's built. Now I "make my own bicycle" because I'm not going to pay for the bicycle that's allready built and it's got the same curves, the same colors, and the same engineering behind it. A perfect replica, because I don't know how to do it originaly, I just copy everything they did, using the same materials because I know that's what works.
I can copy a bicycle, but I can't copy a program?
I know what your going to say: You didn't do any work copying the program, the bicycle took work to build and construct, blah blah blah.
By that rational, if copying software were harder to do and it's something I had to work at, then it's legal?
I don't think the issue here is the work that went into it. It could take me 5 seconds to copy something, or 5 years to copy something. The point is, the manufacturer isn't going to get the money that they are charging for the product (bicyle or software) because I'm not going to pay it. I'm either not going to have one, or I'm going to copy it.
>The comparison is to books or records, not to
>bicycles and cars.
So if I like a band, but I can't afford to pay for the album, I'm going to write my own music? If I like an Author, but can't afford the book, and I'm going to write my own? This most certainly is a comparison to bikes and cars. If software can be "stolen" then it's not an idea. I don't believe ideas can be stolen, they can only be copied.
__
__
In a nutshell, I think slack should be started with. I still use it because I'm so familiar with it, and there is a certain thing about me that stays with one linage (ie: Marlboro, Levi's, or Saturn). I also have the time to do the "mundane" things because administrating linux isn't my job, it's something I run at home for stability and security.... probably also why I drive a stick. heheh.
__
If the standard wasn't it place (even though various versions of it were available), why did MS try to implement into IE3 -- because as it is, the IE3 CSS support is broken to the point of hiding valid content with valid CSS even if the CSS code wasn't meant to do that.
I don't know, I don't work for them
I think moves like this are again only aimed at PHBs to get the product supported, but do little for the web developer or end consumer.
Well said! I'm supporting the WaSP myself, and I'm hoping that we can get a standard HTML/XML parser "lib" and have every browser include it to display the content. Let them do anything they want to the rest of the GUI.
__
2. I thought that NN3 didn't have any css support, but I used the "close to NO" just incase someone knew something that I didn't (there are quite a bunch of people like that)
3. When you have a large audience you have to cover all your bases, so you have to do all that "stupid shit" so you know it looks the same everywhere
I've just learned over the years that it's better to make a page with the added functionality for the users of new tech that is also completely backward compatible. Yeah, it's a bitch, but that's what I get paid for.
__
I think your thinking CSS-P. IE3 doesn't support that because it was practically not even invented yet. But for christ sake man, give credit where credit is due.
Granted CSS (esp css2) is not completely supported on any major platform, and god knows I want it to succeed. I think table layout is the most inconvenient method of placement there is, but what is the big deal? Why not include your style sheet, and then put some font tags in for backward (NN3) compatibility?? Include your css-p div's below the
__
__