First, as I expected, his article was articulate, informative, and interesting.
I would have to disagree. His article is supposed to be talking about openness, but he keeps dragging out a bunch of red herrings and straw men, and goes on and on about irrelevant things for several pages. He even gets the definition of an open web standard wrong. H264 is not an open standard according to the W3C's definition. And that's basically all you need to know.
as evidenced by their support for Flash
Yes, that's another red herring. And you seem to ignore the fact that Flash is a plugin, not native video.
What if some of the people who were informed that they were placebos actually thought they were being lied to as part of the experiment, and thought they were taking the real thing even if they were told it was a placebo? I didn't see anyone mention this. I know I would consider that very possibility -- that they were giving me the real thing, but telling me it was placebo because I was part of a control group or something.
Sigh, yet another it's only good if it looks bad fanboi.
Excuse me? In case you didn't notice, I said that graphics are completely irrelevant. Which part of that could you possibly interpret as "it's only good if it looks bad"? You can't. You are just inventing lies out of desperation.
Don't you think it should be the case that a game which looks like minecraft would drastically outperform many fancy-graphic-eye-candy titles?
This is based on your own blatant lie about what I said. What I actually said was that graphics don't matter. People don't give a shit.
Why are you whining? People who are willing to put up with alpha related bugs are rewarded. Early adopters are rewarded. Is that supposed to be a problem?
From the videos I can find of Minecraft it just looks just like a sandbox. No actual point to doing anything. No objectives.
Those were my thoughts before I actually watched a video of someone playing it.
In reality, it's about survival in a world where monsters come out at night. The sandbox mode is pretty boring to me, but if you start playing singleplayer survival mode, it gets much more interesting. Check out this, for example.
This basically says: "a small percentage of Opera's user base are complete morons". I'm sure this is true of most things. Sadly, though, they are the ones who are running around in this discussion being morons, so they currently effect me.
So, basically, what you said was irrelevant, and also completely misplaced since it's true for just about anything you can think of.
This is incorrect, as I said, the problems are with Opera engine, not anything to do with differences in the UA. Setting it to FF or IE or whatever makes no difference, the problems are in the ENGINE.
No, sorry. This is merely speculation on your part. The people with actual hard data on this have shown that the vast majority of cases are caused by browser sniffing or pages using things like vendor prefixes for CSS.
This is simply, factually incorrect. Ignoring the different versions of IE that had tabs long before Opera, Firefox 2.0 had tabs in late 2001
Opera had tabs in early 2000, with version 4. Please pay attention.
Now, what you are probably confused about is the difference between an MDI and MTI.
Not at all. Again, Opera had tabs before Firefox even existed.
Sorry kiddo, but they were. Greasemonkey, Firebug, Adblock, NoScript, an Extensions framework, these are all things that of which the equivalents appeared in opera later.
Huh? Equivalents to what? When did anyone claim that Opera had extensions before Firefox? Wow, you are desperate.
BTW, Opera's User JS was available before Greasemonkey. They used it for the infamous "Bork" version.
It's entirely different. Saying Opera innovated tabs is like saying Microsoft innovated the GUI.
I never said that "Opera innovated tabs." Nice try, though.
They are not. The vast majority of compatibility issues are due to browser sniffing. Masking as Firefox fixes nearly all of them. That, or they rely on things like vendor prefixes for CSS.
Perhaps, yet more often than not sites that display in Chrome, IE and FF fine won't displayer in Opera, regardless of what the UA is set to.
On the contrary, spoofing as Firefox fixes just about all problems you may be coming across. Just identifying as Firefox usually isn't enough, though, and sometimes even the masking option isn't sufficient because the site goes to such great lengths to detect browsers.
Because many of the claims of innovation are false.
And therefore one should not point out all the innovations that are actual Opera innovations? Wow, amazing logic.
Take Tabs for example. Opera had tabs *LONG AFTER* Firefox
Opera had tabs before Firefox even existed.
Likewise many of the things were available as extensions for IE or FF.
No, they were not.
They didn't innovate much, but brought things to prominence. Very different.
No, not very different at all. But most of the things you take for granted in modern browsers were in fact invented by Opera.
The main thing I have against Opera is that a small (probably vanishingly so) portion of their user base is absolute evangelical morons who have to run around to any forum where Opera is even slightly mentioned and post 7000 identical responses (anonymously) saying that Opera is the pinnacle of human technology. Everything has fan boys, but Opera's are even more annoying than most.
Funny how you have to justify your choices by attacking others. Especially since you desperately cling to open-source, which is well known for its zealous user base.
All fanboys should die.
The way you are bashing the user base of one browser, makes you one yourself. Congratulations. Hypocrisy rocks!
Seven years? Opera has been able to group tabs for many years by using the "Windows" panel and multiple windows. Stacking is just a more obvious and intuitive way of doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, he goes on and on about irrelevant things.
I would have to disagree. His article is supposed to be talking about openness, but he keeps dragging out a bunch of red herrings and straw men, and goes on and on about irrelevant things for several pages. He even gets the definition of an open web standard wrong. H264 is not an open standard according to the W3C's definition. And that's basically all you need to know.
Yes, that's another red herring. And you seem to ignore the fact that Flash is a plugin, not native video.
But not for the web. There's no video standard for the web. Webm will hopefully become it.
And none of them will be published without being converted by video hosting services. So they might as well convert to webm.
You won't be able to stream the same video file because all those video hosting services are converting even h264 videos anyway.
And rightly so. The whole thing was a mess, and Microsoft was basically trying its Embrace, Extend crap again.
No, it covers all followers.
Um, this pilot did carry a gun in the cockpit. He was supposed to.
Maybe because there are laws against it? Just like there should be a law against patent trolling.
Even NewYorkCountryLawyer?
What if some of the people who were informed that they were placebos actually thought they were being lied to as part of the experiment, and thought they were taking the real thing even if they were told it was a placebo? I didn't see anyone mention this. I know I would consider that very possibility -- that they were giving me the real thing, but telling me it was placebo because I was part of a control group or something.
Excuse me? In case you didn't notice, I said that graphics are completely irrelevant. Which part of that could you possibly interpret as "it's only good if it looks bad"? You can't. You are just inventing lies out of desperation.
This is based on your own blatant lie about what I said. What I actually said was that graphics don't matter. People don't give a shit.
You sound like a whiny, jealous little bitch. How's that going for you?
Why is that a problem? Anyone who bought it during alpha gets all future updates for free. That, and the price was so ridiculously low it's laughable.
Quit your whining already. You are just jealous that he made a kickass game that became insanely popular, and you still can't get a real job.
Why are you whining? People who are willing to put up with alpha related bugs are rewarded. Early adopters are rewarded. Is that supposed to be a problem?
Ooh! Better graphics! Who gives a flying fuck?? Graphics are completely irrelevant, unless you are a 13 year old whiny hardcore gamer.
What matters is if it's fun.
Do scary monsters come out at night? Is SL a game o exploration and survival in a hostile and mystical world?
Those were my thoughts before I actually watched a video of someone playing it.
In reality, it's about survival in a world where monsters come out at night. The sandbox mode is pretty boring to me, but if you start playing singleplayer survival mode, it gets much more interesting. Check out this, for example.
So, basically, what you said was irrelevant, and also completely misplaced since it's true for just about anything you can think of.
Type a URL? What are you talking about? Typing a URL won't magically show you the code for analysis.
No, sorry. This is merely speculation on your part. The people with actual hard data on this have shown that the vast majority of cases are caused by browser sniffing or pages using things like vendor prefixes for CSS.
Opera had tabs in early 2000, with version 4. Please pay attention.
Not at all. Again, Opera had tabs before Firefox even existed.
Huh? Equivalents to what? When did anyone claim that Opera had extensions before Firefox? Wow, you are desperate.
BTW, Opera's User JS was available before Greasemonkey. They used it for the infamous "Bork" version.
I never said that "Opera innovated tabs." Nice try, though.
They are not. The vast majority of compatibility issues are due to browser sniffing. Masking as Firefox fixes nearly all of them. That, or they rely on things like vendor prefixes for CSS.
On the contrary, spoofing as Firefox fixes just about all problems you may be coming across. Just identifying as Firefox usually isn't enough, though, and sometimes even the masking option isn't sufficient because the site goes to such great lengths to detect browsers.
And therefore one should not point out all the innovations that are actual Opera innovations? Wow, amazing logic.
Opera had tabs before Firefox even existed.
No, they were not.
No, not very different at all. But most of the things you take for granted in modern browsers were in fact invented by Opera.
So you use Windows over Linux, then? And you must absolutely despise Firefox, considering the extremely poor reputation of Firefox fans.
Funny how you have to justify your choices by attacking others. Especially since you desperately cling to open-source, which is well known for its zealous user base.
The way you are bashing the user base of one browser, makes you one yourself. Congratulations. Hypocrisy rocks!
They may conform to web standards, but the browser was built from the ground up to handle real world sites.
Buggy? Even the beta was more stable than most final software.
That has been possible for many years.
Seven years? Opera has been able to group tabs for many years by using the "Windows" panel and multiple windows. Stacking is just a more obvious and intuitive way of doing it.