Just to agree to Chatterton's post, if you have documents that are not well formed, then you're operating outside of any spec. and therefore can't expect anything to work!
FWIW I've never had any problems with XSLT working in both IE and Firefox; there are differences, but nothing that would make me say one is better than the other.... and furthermore, since I've slagged-off MS in other posts, I should say that I've always found MSXML to be very solid, and fast.
If you want XSLT incompatility (?!), then that'd be Opera! The lack of document() support kills pretty much anything I use!!
IE7, IMHO, is not ready for prime time. Even uninstalling is somewhat hidden. Hint: Control Panel, Add/Remove software, show Windows Updates, then find IE7, remove.
I didn't have that problem myself; it was just in Control Panel...Add/Remove software and was listed as "Internet Explorer" I think. That's on a XP Home install and I had previously installed IE7 betas, which I had uninstalled prior to installing a new version.
So even the installer has intermittent bugs?
Re all the other issues, yeah there's plenty of sites that don't look right although without investigating the problem, I tend to give IE7 the benefit of the doubt; I'm all heart aren't I?!:D
The bestest test though is www.microsoft.com in IE7 vs. Opera (current version whatever that is). Since they both have a "zoom" feature, try them both at 125% and then choose which one looks the best AND feels most responsive.
I suspect that the powers that be decided that IE7 has to be out the door by a certain date, bugs or no bugs.... so we've got the bugs!
For example, create a super basic html page. Within the <body> insert a single <p>aragraph, and within that paragraph, insert a(<a href="#">) link (</a>) - insert it somewhere after the start of the paragraph and before the end. E.g.
<body>
<p>This is a <a href="#foo">test link</a> for checking IE7 links</p>
</body>
Okay, view the page. It looks fine. Now Zoom 125%. The underscore below the link is rendered funny, and even better, if you move the mouse over the link, you'll find the mouse:hover events START BEFORE where the link is rendered and END BEFORE the rendered link ends.
*I believe* if the link has a background colour, then this background is rendered in the wrong place also.
Quite honestly I don't know how MS could've missed this... but there again....
Z.
In any case, does google publish their browser stats any more? I know the Zeitgeist pages used to have that data but I'm sure that ended at least 2 years ago.
I ploughed through the comments of a Debian bug last night and from what I could gather, Debian were okay with just ignoring the Firefox logo issue in the short term. But MozCo took a harder line, which appears to be a change in tact. In fairness to MozCo, they're doing this because legally they have to enforce their own rules.
The real sticking point seemed to be a mixture of both parties haggling over logo, trademark and patch issues and to be honest, neither party seemed quite proactive enough to push through negotiations. But equally, I don't believe any bridges were burnt in the process, so this could be resolved in the future.
The bigger problem appeared [to me anyway] to be that any changes to the source code *had* to go via the official source control if it were to be called Firefox. This was unacceptable to Debian because they need to maintain older version of Firefox, and I think they might also be unhappy with Mozilla pushing software update and security patches at the same time. Thats not a critisim of MozCo, but simply a difference in the way Debian's slow-but-steady ways and MozCo's more bleenin' edge approach.
Which reminds me of... "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
Is it legal (or even possible yet) to run Linux on an xbox360? I ask since the security on the latter console appears more "robust" than the first xbox, and consequently, is surely more likely to involve a DCMA violation?
Just to balance out all the pro-PlusNet comments, I used to be a happy Metronet user until they were bought by PlusNet! And without a doubt, Metronet used to be an absolutely fantastic company; I din't think anyone had a bad word to say about the old Metronet, but being bought by PlusNet was frankly depressing.
IDNet on the otherhand are my new ISP and are as awesome as the olde Metronet.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree with this. It's almost worth starting a sourceforge project which is identical to GIMP in all but name. That way, it should be trivial to keep it fully up-to-date with the original.
You know the other week when we were all down with O'Reilly trying to patent/copyright/whatever "Web 2.0", well, perhaps they were just trying to save us from all this hype over nothing. I mean, if we had just accepted that "Web 2.0" was now owned by O'Reilly and we couldn't even mention it's name, we'd be free of TFA. All of them. Whilst, in every other sense, the web would develop as it is now. We just wouldn't be subjected to all this articles _about_ Web 2.0!!
All hail O'Reilly -- they tried to save us but we wouldn't listen!:D
Another load of crap! I have written many, many macro based apps for customers that dealt with Excel and Word. The unfortunate thing is that every new release of Office breaks macros in some stupid way that usually requires rewriting the majority of them. I finally got fed up with arguing with customers that decided it was my job to fix them for every release of Office for free and quit doing it! Anybody that releases products based on macros in Office is stupid!
lol!
The Microsoft way isn't generally the "best" way from an IT perspective. However, from a business perspective it "works", thus, your business model is:
Sell office macro to customer
Sell "on going maintenance" to customer (this is a large number for doing essentially nothing)
When customer upgrades to newer version of office, make as few changes as possible to make it work even if it now looks fugly
If customer requests an update to make product fit better with the new Office, charge them again
Back to step 2
So you see, if you'd written a rock solid macro, you'd get paid far far less!;)
Typically, some of the addional revenues can be pumped into glossy promotional material that will include a Microsoft Certified DooDah logo which will assure your customer that your solution is far better than the competition. Don't let facts get in the way of a sale!
Plenty of Excel documents do contain macros. Additionally, plenty of organisations make use of Excel Add-Ins. And yep, probably most are VBA (I'm not quite up to date with things these days in terms of development, so I don't know if all the.Net languages are available).
Is there any reason that OO.o couldnt implement a compatible implementation of VBA if some hacker wanted to take the time to implement it?
OOo does have its own "basic" language which (to me anyway) appears identical to VBA. However, I believe the document object model is different! I suspect this making OOo compatible is very much "non-trivial" else it would've already been done. Hence my slightly OT suggestion of instead adding an OOo API compatibilty wrapper to MS Office... although this may be just as hard.:(
If you bother to read the Groklaw article, you'll note that the ODF plugin supports Word, Excel and PowerPoint. I.e., you can save to an ODF format from each of the three. I assume Access will be forthcoming in a later release.
Appoligies! I did read the article... but clearly, not thoughly enough.
But ulitmately it [odf plugin for Word] undermines an important USP for MS Office, namely, compatibility with MS Word documents! Microsoft specifically do not want people to use an open format such as OpenDocument because if they do, it makes it easier from them [the customer] to switch to a competing product, such as StarOffice or OOo.
If MS wanted to, they could very easily have added such functionality to Word themselves. The fact that they haven't offered to do so highlights to importance they attach to keepinig people locked into *.doc and now OpenXML.
In some ways, this plugin might undermine OpenDocument since it might provide a way for MS to keep their foot in the door, which they will likely exploit to "convert" customers back to using proprietry formats.
However, I think that whilst it helps with using OpenDocument with MS Word, Excel is still a "killer app" that makes switching to competing office products difficult. There are a lot of companies that ship products that include Excel documents with macros as part of their product. Whilst these don't work with competing products (such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org), then Excel retains the upper hand.
[going off on a tangent here...] it might be better to build an OpenOffice.org API wrapper for MS Office? That way, a company wanting to produce a spreadsheet with macro functionality, could create one for OOo, and use this [hypothetical] API wrapper to make the macros work with MS Office.
Or somthing!
(I'm thinking out loud here).
The spooky thing is, if you load your MS document into OpenOffice.org and then re-save it out (Save As) as an MS Word.doc, the resulting file will be smaller.
That said, you should be careful if the document is important as there can sometimes be some undesirable formatting changes. YMMV but I've found there is often no visible change to the document, just a smaller file, which for a template that is used a lot can result in a huge space saving over time.
You might argue that because iPods are constantly being mentioned. But other MP3 players do get sold. As opposed to non-Windows computers, where the percentage is absolutely minute. Also, since Apple tends to position themselves as a "premium" product and charge accordingly, there is likely to always be something else on the market that will likely be cheaper.
The thing that France is complaining about is iTunes, which certainly does lock out all others and could lead to monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to agree to Chatterton's post, if you have documents that are not well formed, then you're operating outside of any spec. and therefore can't expect anything to work!
FWIW I've never had any problems with XSLT working in both IE and Firefox; there are differences, but nothing that would make me say one is better than the other.... and furthermore, since I've slagged-off MS in other posts, I should say that I've always found MSXML to be very solid, and fast.
If you want XSLT incompatility (?!), then that'd be Opera! The lack of document() support kills pretty much anything I use!!
No the zoom feature is new to IE7. They did (and still do) have the ability to change the text size.
Firefox by contrast doesn't have zoom at all. But Opera's zoom is quite considerably better than IE7's!
IE7, IMHO, is not ready for prime time. Even uninstalling is somewhat hidden. Hint: Control Panel, Add/Remove software, show Windows Updates, then find IE7, remove.
:D
I didn't have that problem myself; it was just in Control Panel...Add/Remove software and was listed as "Internet Explorer" I think. That's on a XP Home install and I had previously installed IE7 betas, which I had uninstalled prior to installing a new version.
So even the installer has intermittent bugs?
Re all the other issues, yeah there's plenty of sites that don't look right although without investigating the problem, I tend to give IE7 the benefit of the doubt; I'm all heart aren't I?!
The bestest test though is www.microsoft.com in IE7 vs. Opera (current version whatever that is). Since they both have a "zoom" feature, try them both at 125% and then choose which one looks the best AND feels most responsive.
I suspect that the powers that be decided that IE7 has to be out the door by a certain date, bugs or no bugs.... so we've got the bugs!
Hi all,
:hover events START BEFORE where the link is rendered and END BEFORE the rendered link ends.
IE7 isn't ready yet; it needs more testing!
For example, create a super basic html page. Within the <body> insert a single <p>aragraph, and within that paragraph, insert a(<a href="#">) link (</a>) - insert it somewhere after the start of the paragraph and before the end. E.g.
<body>
<p>This is a <a href="#foo">test link</a> for checking IE7 links</p>
</body>
Okay, view the page. It looks fine. Now Zoom 125%. The underscore below the link is rendered funny, and even better, if you move the mouse over the link, you'll find the mouse
*I believe* if the link has a background colour, then this background is rendered in the wrong place also.
Quite honestly I don't know how MS could've missed this... but there again....
Z.
In any case, does google publish their browser stats any more? I know the Zeitgeist pages used to have that data but I'm sure that ended at least 2 years ago.
I ploughed through the comments of a Debian bug last night and from what I could gather, Debian were okay with just ignoring the Firefox logo issue in the short term. But MozCo took a harder line, which appears to be a change in tact. In fairness to MozCo, they're doing this because legally they have to enforce their own rules.
:D
The real sticking point seemed to be a mixture of both parties haggling over logo, trademark and patch issues and to be honest, neither party seemed quite proactive enough to push through negotiations. But equally, I don't believe any bridges were burnt in the process, so this could be resolved in the future.
The bigger problem appeared [to me anyway] to be that any changes to the source code *had* to go via the official source control if it were to be called Firefox. This was unacceptable to Debian because they need to maintain older version of Firefox, and I think they might also be unhappy with Mozilla pushing software update and security patches at the same time. Thats not a critisim of MozCo, but simply a difference in the way Debian's slow-but-steady ways and MozCo's more bleenin' edge approach.
Thats my 2p's worth anyways!!
This is almost certainly a dumb question, but whats the lime for?
If I could mod you up I sooooo would. But yes, you are evil! :D
\s+arghhh predictably appears in a lot of comments, but suprisingly is also a large number of variables/classes/identifier-of-some-kind!
Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?
;)
Firm, but fair! I don't think anyone could find fault with that!!
It was a little disappointing -- so to anyone who finds the GIF has been /.'ed, I wouldn't worry!
Which reminds me of... "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
Is it legal (or even possible yet) to run Linux on an xbox360? I ask since the security on the latter console appears more "robust" than the first xbox, and consequently, is surely more likely to involve a DCMA violation?
Just to balance out all the pro-PlusNet comments, I used to be a happy Metronet user until they were bought by PlusNet! And without a doubt, Metronet used to be an absolutely fantastic company; I din't think anyone had a bad word to say about the old Metronet, but being bought by PlusNet was frankly depressing.
IDNet on the otherhand are my new ISP and are as awesome as the olde Metronet.
I totally agree with this. It's almost worth starting a sourceforge project which is identical to GIMP in all but name. That way, it should be trivial to keep it fully up-to-date with the original.
You know the other week when we were all down with O'Reilly trying to patent/copyright/whatever "Web 2.0", well, perhaps they were just trying to save us from all this hype over nothing. I mean, if we had just accepted that "Web 2.0" was now owned by O'Reilly and we couldn't even mention it's name, we'd be free of TFA. All of them. Whilst, in every other sense, the web would develop as it is now. We just wouldn't be subjected to all this articles _about_ Web 2.0!!
:D
All hail O'Reilly -- they tried to save us but we wouldn't listen!
The mouse that comes with a huge booklette/EULA/license code? Yeah, I know the one! ;)
lol!
The Microsoft way isn't generally the "best" way from an IT perspective. However, from a business perspective it "works", thus, your business model is:
So you see, if you'd written a rock solid macro, you'd get paid far far less!
Typically, some of the addional revenues can be pumped into glossy promotional material that will include a Microsoft Certified DooDah logo which will assure your customer that your solution is far better than the competition. Don't let facts get in the way of a sale!
Plenty of Excel documents do contain macros. Additionally, plenty of organisations make use of Excel Add-Ins. And yep, probably most are VBA (I'm not quite up to date with things these days in terms of development, so I don't know if all the .Net languages are available).
:(
Is there any reason that OO.o couldnt implement a compatible implementation of VBA if some hacker wanted to take the time to implement it?
OOo does have its own "basic" language which (to me anyway) appears identical to VBA. However, I believe the document object model is different! I suspect this making OOo compatible is very much "non-trivial" else it would've already been done. Hence my slightly OT suggestion of instead adding an OOo API compatibilty wrapper to MS Office... although this may be just as hard.
If you bother to read the Groklaw article, you'll note that the ODF plugin supports Word, Excel and PowerPoint. I.e., you can save to an ODF format from each of the three. I assume Access will be forthcoming in a later release.
Appoligies! I did read the article... but clearly, not thoughly enough.
But ulitmately it [odf plugin for Word] undermines an important USP for MS Office, namely, compatibility with MS Word documents! Microsoft specifically do not want people to use an open format such as OpenDocument because if they do, it makes it easier from them [the customer] to switch to a competing product, such as StarOffice or OOo.
If MS wanted to, they could very easily have added such functionality to Word themselves. The fact that they haven't offered to do so highlights to importance they attach to keepinig people locked into *.doc and now OpenXML.
In some ways, this plugin might undermine OpenDocument since it might provide a way for MS to keep their foot in the door, which they will likely exploit to "convert" customers back to using proprietry formats.
However, I think that whilst it helps with using OpenDocument with MS Word, Excel is still a "killer app" that makes switching to competing office products difficult. There are a lot of companies that ship products that include Excel documents with macros as part of their product. Whilst these don't work with competing products (such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org), then Excel retains the upper hand.
[going off on a tangent here...] it might be better to build an OpenOffice.org API wrapper for MS Office? That way, a company wanting to produce a spreadsheet with macro functionality, could create one for OOo, and use this [hypothetical] API wrapper to make the macros work with MS Office.
Or somthing!
(I'm thinking out loud here).
The spooky thing is, if you load your MS document into OpenOffice.org and then re-save it out (Save As) as an MS Word .doc, the resulting file will be smaller.
That said, you should be careful if the document is important as there can sometimes be some undesirable formatting changes. YMMV but I've found there is often no visible change to the document, just a smaller file, which for a template that is used a lot can result in a huge space saving over time.
Same applies for Excel spreadies.
You might argue that because iPods are constantly being mentioned. But other MP3 players do get sold. As opposed to non-Windows computers, where the percentage is absolutely minute. Also, since Apple tends to position themselves as a "premium" product and charge accordingly, there is likely to always be something else on the market that will likely be cheaper.
The thing that France is complaining about is iTunes, which certainly does lock out all others and could lead to monopoly.
But it doesn't really stop anyone though.
Without a doubt, "I, Woz" is the best title ever. Pure genius!!
I wonder if the Woz himself thought of it or someone else?