I know you raise a good point. But i couldn't really let your comment go by without pointing out that Firefox (and otehr Gecko-based browsers for all I know) have some known rendering issues with a certain geek-news site you may have heard of.
I'm not sure which side the problem lies on (possibly Mozilla, if I read the Slash sourceforge tracker correctly), but it is kind of an amusing combination.
Hate the law all you want, I do. But, regardless, Real Networks is a bunch of jerks.
I agree with you on this one. Apple may be heavy-handed, but Real are acting like spoiled brats.
And come on, this is nothing to do with "Freedom of Format" on goodwill on Real's part. This is about getting a freeride on someone else's popularity and selling it be claiming "Freedom of Format".
From a BBC article: Rob Glaser, RealNetworks' chief executive, said it had developed it so that consumers could buy music once and play it anywhere.
Pure spin.
If you really want people do "buy music once and play it anywhere" then you use a format that's either popular or open, one that can be easily format-shifted, and one without DRM.
You can't make that claim with one hand whilst impementing DRM with the other.
Even before reading Apple's response, when the news first went up about what Real had done, I had an uneasy feeling. I dunno. It just feels like they've done "the right thing" for all the wrong reasons, and gone the wrong way about it.
Apple are right to be ticked. Apple probably have to be seen to do something about this. And much as I hate the idea of the DMCA it's one of the available tools in this, and Apple's lawyers would be foolish not to consider all the options - even if some of them strike a bad note with most of us.
Now I'm hoping that they squash Real on different very-non-DMCA lines. I'd rather they didn't have to resort to such "dirty tactics" - even against Real.
I say that if Real really want to make music purchased from them playable on anything, either use a more open format, or allow iTunes-like burning to CD.
Apple (and other legal music stores) work on the perceived power of DRM. People have quoted Steve Jobs as saying that he knows that there's no way to make DRM rock-solid. However Apple have managed to come up with something that has enough DRM to satisfy the RIAA and their ilk, yet weak enough to stil allow users to do quite a lot with DRM files they buy.
But at least part of that is that an iPod cannot play a DRM file that it's not authorised to.
Now it's one thing when J. Random-Hacker comes up with a way around this, but another company doing it is a bad thing.
If nothing else it runs the risk of the Music Industries clamping down and insisting on iron-clad DRM and/or higher prices - and then screaming blue murder when copying doesn't stop.
It just comes over as Real trying to make a quick buck at the expense of weakening the perceived strength of Fairplay protection. And that's bad for Apple, and probably for Legal Digital Music at large.
Plus regardless of whether you think Apple was right or wrong not to grant Real a license, Real're basically getting around a License and then planning to profit from it. This is not a good thing. This is not a precedent anyone wants a big company setting.
I don't like DRM, and I don't like Licensing. however this isn't the way I particularly want to see them challenged. It's not going to end well, and the Users will be the ones to lose out the most in the long-term.
If you were Apple, what would *you* do? I'm not sure I'd direct my company to act any differently, though I'd be pressing Real to license FairPlay for a large sum of cash.
Reading this it's just occured to me that this might have been Real's plan.
To use the tired old cliche...
Get refused license for technology.
Work out way to do it anyway.
Get "threatened" with "Buy a license and we won't sue"
Buy license, sell songs to iPod users.
???????
Profit!
Yes, there is still an unknown in there. Namely getting people to buy anything from Real. not impossible, but in some circles not entirely easy.
This is a very loaded situation, and it's hard to see who (if anyone) is in the "right".
But one thing's for sure, if Apple are in the wrong, Real definitely are too.
Remember, so far Apple haven't exactly been standing idly by and letting things like Hymn and PlayFair slip by unchanllenged. Although all they've done in those cases is change things on each update so that the current versions don't work.
Apple knows what they're doing here. They could use the law and come down like a ton of bricks. But this wouldn't do anything good at all. It wouldn't stop the attempts, and it'd but Apple in a wholly bad light.
This think with Real is a whole 'nother situation. On the face of it it's similar - removing some of the restrictions on Digital music. But under the surface it's very different.
This isn't hobbyists trying to get their hardware to do what they want, nor is it "heroes" trying to work around DRM. This is a rival company using dubious methods to increase their potential customer-base at any costs - a tactic Real has been using for years.
Trying to hack a rival company's product to play your closed format in addition to their own is not a noble cause.
Problem is it's put Apple between a rock and a hard place. If they allow this, it's a bad thing. If they don't then they look like the Bad Guy.
From what I understand about iTunes (never installed it under Windows - and recently moved fully to Linux at home so not in a position to do so) it already allows you to shift (unprotected) MP3, WMA and AAC files onto the iPod. And if it doesn't take any other formats (Ogg Vorbis, for example) it's usually possible to reencode the files. Especially seeing that some people these days tend to rip in FLAC and then transcode to whatever they need afterwards from a single high-quality-yet-still-compressed source.
And for those who like to pay for music and won't (or can't) use iTMS the you can still rip from CD using iTunes. So it's not exactly as if iPod owners have no choice at all.
Especially seeing that Real's store is, AFAICT, available in less places than iTMS.
Though Linux support would be nice. Those iPods look really sweet, but I'm now not in a position to use one. (Side-question: How well do the Karma and the IRiver work alongside Linux?)
Apple sure ain't perfect in this, but much as I disagree with their statement and methods I don't think they should just stand back. Real had their chance. They tried to go the license route. Apple chose to deny the request - and it was their choice to do so. And OK, Real have only gone the same route many home geeks take, but I doubt they wouldn't scream blue murder if the situation was reversed.
Notice that the Parent post didn't necessarily say that it should be the FCC doing the regulating.
Every single time something comes up about TV-censorship in the US people always spout "The FCC shoudl just regulate frequencies and leave it at that."
Which is a fair point, but not always the appropriate response to every post/article.
Yes, it looks like the FCC are the wrong people to be doing this. It's way outside their original spec, and not really what they should be doing.
Yes, I'm wary about Government (any country's government) having much direct say in what is and isn't appropriate for kids/people to watch.
Plus, to the "They should check what their kinds are watching" brigade, this is what the Parent was even saying.
(emphasis mine)
Better yet, don't censor the airwaves at all, just require a very thorough, detailed, and precise rating system, and enforce it. Then parents can decide what is suitable for themselves to view as well as their children, and nobody needs to step on anyone else's right to broadcast what they want or watch what they want.
I agree with this. I don't necessarily like that it's necessary, but unfortunately with modren societies something like this is necessary.
And better Ratings than Censorship. (Although here in the UK sometimes it's hard to see the line between the two...)
But if before a program, or in the TV Guide in the papers, or the EPG there was a clearly stated rating stating what content should be expected - and that the information was accurate and trustworthy - then no censorship would be needed. Any people complaining about what their "Precious Little Angels" saw could be pointed several examples of where the program was clearly labelled and have their complaint laughed out.
Yes, parents should have final say in what their kids should watch. However, as the Parent rightly points out, they need the information to make an informed choice.
Having said all that, I don't think it's the FCC's job to do any of that. And I also don't think it's anything that should be closely controlled by politics. Some sort fo regulatory body does need to exist, but one that is truly seperate from the government. And one where complaints from politicians have equal say (but no more) than anyone else's.
But, I think that V-Chip ratings should be *much* more detailed, precise, and most importantly, UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED. And I think that the FCC should have the responsibility and power to force all broadcasters to very thoroughly and accurately rate their broadcasts.
Normally I'm against things like this being compulsary - usually because it's done along the lines of "Here is what you must do to continue, by the way you have to pay to get it done."
Now if this didn't cost the broadcasters any extra (I have no idea if it would) then it certainly should be mandated. Personalyl I don't like the idea of "other people" deciding what is and isn't suitable, but it seems that that's the way things are going. So if it's going to happen then I'd rather that it was "tagged and flagged" and the final decision made at the viewer's end, rather than "tagged and gagged" and either not broadcast at all or severaly dumbed down.
By all means say that violent acts are unsuitable, that human bodies should be shown fully covered at all times, and that certain words really shouldn't be heard.
But put the switch at my end, not yours. If parents really want to allow their kids to watch unsupervised at times[*] then let them. But also allow them the option of restricting what appears on the box. Though prefereably not by restricting me in the crossfire. (Flag in good, cancelling broadcast bad.)
[*] Eventually you have to trust your kids, and nothing winds them up more than constantly checking up on what they're doing. Which is why I don't mind some sort of inbuilt restrictions - as long as they're always overridable.
Plus although I do kinda believe that watching alongside your kids is probably a good thing, it's not always viable.
One thing I absolutely loathe and despise is having to go back and do something I've already done. I'm not talking about grinding in FFXI here; that changes as you level up, so there's a sense of progress. I'm talking about having to replay a 15 minute game section because I died right at the end and had no option to save my game. In my mind, there is *no* excuse for not implementing a quicksave function in PC (and perhaps Xbox) games or not having ample opportunities to save in a console game. I own and use all three of the current-generation consoles, but I've a particular dislike for the Gamecube, because so many of its games have ridiculous save policies.
Oh yes. That irritates on so many levels. It's also worse when combined with two of the major uses of Plot in RPGs.
Not that I don't like plot. I love it. But still...
Exposition followed by no Save Option:
You go into a new level, boss fight, or whatever. There then follows a segment of plot. The first time you go through it it's fine, but you often have no chance to save before going into the action. So if you die (and with Boss-fights it can take a few goes to get right...) you've got to sit through the exposition again. It's not as bad when you can skip these segments, but in some games you can't.
Post-battle Story Mode:
After several hours of attempts, a long battle, and a good helping of pure luck you finally win a Boss Battle. Geek-instincts scream "Save now, before you do anything else." Instead you're treated to a 5-minute unskippable section of Story Mode. (The Final Fantasy games are notorious for this)
Usually this would have the bad timing to occur when I'm already running late for something. Meaning I either had to be more late, or just power-off and hope I could still win the next time. (I was reluctant to leave the console running when I went out after an incident with a SNES, a loose power-connection, and a kick-on-return induced reset)
I just wish that after major battles the first thing you were treated to was a save-point and not a plot segment.
I have to say that I like the feature in recent Square-Enix games where you can save-quit during a battle, and re-enter it later. (Albeit you can only load it once) It means that at least you don't have to lose progress in an important battle if you have to leave.
Almost 50 years later, it's still copyrighted material, and they're trying to say that you can't make a parody of it?
This copyright extension crap has to go. I swear, it's getting way out of hand.
Seriously, it's getting worse.
It's like they don't want material to enter the Public Domain. Ever. Hell, forget "like", they don't want it.
The problem is I don't think I like the justifications. Remixes and samples without having to pay. What a tragedy. And other companies could release "Best Of" compilations at 10 $LOCAL_CURRENCY, rather than the 20+ they try to sell at.
Too shortsighted.
What you also forget is that political decisions like this (especially when influenced by big-business) do tend to spread. Slowly but surely. If this goes through in the US then it's only a matter of time before they start puching for the same thing in Europe, Canada, Australia, and everywhere else.
And although I don't think legislation is "bought" to quite so high a level in other countries I'm pretty sure the politicians do fall for the FUD and exaggerations put around that "Piracy is Bad and Leads To Loss Of Otherwise Assured Sales".
I might be in the UK, but I get scared about every potential bad American law, because I know it won't take long before they start to push for the same changes everywhere else.
"Specific Market" is outdated. When you didn't know what was available elsewhere in the world they could get away with it. Now information about stuff can be all around the world almost the moment it's been announced. The only issue that matters to actual players is localisation, and even then not every player, and not in every case.
Changing Final Fantasy dialogue to English so I can read it is understandable. Losing the DDR songs I actually like and replacing them with chart-crap I genuinely can't bear to listen to is a total mystery.
The "problem" that Sony (and any other company) face now is that people now know when the games that they actually like are available elsewhere. So why the hell don't they adapt, stop staggering releases and actually release same-language versions simultaneously. Unless they do, the need to import ain't gonna go away.
I've had various consoles for about 15 years now, and for the past 10 or those I've known about games available elsewhere. Suddenly I realised that there were actually games out there that appealed to me.
Sadly I lacked the cash required for the import prices. And there have been a good few games ovewr the past 10 years where I've patiently waited for the release-date only to find that it kept getting pushed back to the point that it either never got released, or I lost interest in the game. And latter would end up as a lost sale. I might not have imported or bootlegged, but I didn't buy it either.
I guess it's not really Sony's fault. But console games, like videos and DVDs, have hit a wall where the old style of regional-licensing has collided head-on with people wanting a product the moment it's available in their language (if not earlier)
I'm not a businessman, I'm a games-fan. I genuinely couldn't care less about licensing issues. I just want to play games, and make sure that the money goes to the companies involved. I don't give a damn whether it's the UK, US, or Outer-Mongolian branch - and as long as they get the money I honestly can't see why they should care either. But if they're going to insist on doing things their current way one thing becomes clear. Whether they mean to or not, the companies obviously don't care about my tastes, and it makes it hard for me to care about them.
But don't think that this is a cut and dried case of trampling of rights. Go bitch at your friends who have a bunch of "Backup copies" of games.
Why, oh why did they integrate the regional-protection and copy-protection into the same check? That's where the problem comes in. They've made it impossible to circumvent the former without negating the latter.
Prsonally I have no interest in coping games. I'd rather buy mine legitimately from shops. Pretty packaging. The full instructions. The works. I do, however, have an interest in one day being able to play American or Japanese games - preferably without having to buy a second version of a console I already own that simply has one different function in it.
To me it just asks for trouble. If people could mod their consoles in a way that allowed imports but not "backups" then you get increased sales (Maybe not where you want them, but actual sales nonetheless) without the risk of those same customers saying "Stuff this, the self-burn will work anyway so why pay?"
The problem is importing, though. Maybe it pails into insignificance copared to copied games these days. But for those of us with legal UK Playstations (for UK games) who might also wish to buy and play some games that haven't been (and won't be) released over here this removes our choice. We now can't legally play these games.
I've been saying way back since the days of the SNES that the console companies should release their own devices to allow the playing of import games. If not immediately then certainly once well into the lifespan of a console.
I'm sure there's a way of a Sony/Nintendo/whoever dongle being able to tell the difference between a legit other-region game and a copy. And if they themselves provide a means of playing imports without allowing copies to play (corporate benefit) and without invalidating the warranty or risking the insides of your console to yourself or an unknown shop (user benefit) then they'd probably benefit.
Heck, what with Konami's European branches refusing to release DDR and instead giving us the likes of "Dancing Stage: Commercial Pop-tripe Edition" they've lost several sales right there. 'Cos it feels like a slap in he face to those of us who got into the series through the Japanese tracks (and can't stand Western pop...). If the device that allows you to play a legitimately purchased copy of a game requires you breaking the law, then why are people going to bother buying imports? If modding is classified as blanket-illegal then people will either not buy the games at all (Sony loses) or just pirate it instead (Sony loses).
I tend to use StepMania on my PC instead. Far less legal, but it gives me the songs I actually like. Did the UK Playstations not have a region-lock I'd have bought legit copies of the American or Japanese releases.
I know they like to have regional control over releases. But that method was dead a decade ago, and it ain't any better now. Like films people know what's out there, and sometimes there's more choice to your taste elsewhere. I can't see why that should be penalised.
I mainly use Mozilla under Windows for browsing, so it's obviously what I check under first. Plus i've found (between mine and other sites) that Mozilla is less-forgiving over HTML errors, so I tend to catch more of my dumbest mistakes straight away.
My next test tends to be IE - mainly 'cos it's in Windows and i can test it immediately. I've found this is where I pick up on where IE and Moz tend to render certain aspects of CSS differently. I'll then straighten it out, trying to make sure it either renders perfectly under both, or perfectly under Mozilla and fails nicely (i.e. "I can still read the content") under IE.
I then tend to shell into my older Linux box to test under Lynx and Links. The latter allows me to check for formatted plain text, and the former to make sure that even with minimal formatting (no tables or whatever) it's still easy enough to read and navigate.
I also will plug the laptop in and check IE (and now Firefox) on that. My main monitor runs at 1280 but the laptop is at 1024, so I can check that anything that looks fine at my resolution also still works at lower ones.
Next stage is dual-boot over to Linux. Just to make sure that whatever mozilla variant I'm using still renders the site corrently under Linux. Also to make sure that the "if all else fails" fonts (default "serif" and "sans-serif") still produce a readable page.
I should probably check it under stuff like Konqueror at this point.
I don't use Opera myself, but the first thing I do when I put my site live is to get my friend who runs Opera to see how it works on his.
I was never personally impressed by using Opera, so I've no real desire to install it on my own computer for what's basically a spare-time website. Though were I doing professional sites this would not be the case.
For personal curiosity's sake, whenever I'm online elsewhere I do have a look at how my site looks under different setups. Especially those who still insist on using 800x600.
I guess you have a point there. Many people (and not only the non-geeks) would click on a link (or even copy/paste the URL) to see what the fuss is about. Kinda like the goatse site. Though with a virus just the one visit is enough.
I think it's one of those no-win situations. You don't spread around which sites which are infected, 'cos otherwise you'd get the non-technical people clicking anyway, mischeivous/malicious people doing sneaky redirects, and and probably law suits from people complaining about slander/loss of income. Plus by keeping it secret the people involved can get their sites fixed and secured without a stupid level of public/media pressure.
However from the other side if you (as a user/admin) don't know which sites are infected how can you be sure you (or your users) aren't visiting them. Yes, you should probably be using or enforcing the utmost scrutiny to all sites anyway, but the easiest way to not get infected by a site is to not visit it at all. (Oh, and stop your browser from accepting blind-redirects or loading images from different sites from the page you're on - hmmmm, can IE block this?)
Whichever option a company (whether media, antivirus/security, or with the infected site) takes is going to cause problems. Disclosure wouldn't help that much, but secrecy doesn't help the knowledgable stay safe - plus causes a panic of "Is site-x infected?"
This is why the BSD-style license is important. It doesn't have to be always BSD or GPL for everything and never use the other. Each has its advantages. But they're totally different advantages. And the advantages go both ways.
In GPL yes there are the restrictions. This might discourage some from incorporating the GPL code, but when people do use it and distribute it then all of the changes will (or should) be released back. Plus for those who (for whatever reason) don't want their code being used in proprietary software then they have that level of protection.
Under the BSD license then anyone can use the code without having to release all used changes back. If they want to keep some changes back they can do. It also means that they can keep some back, but release the rest (like Apple, or your company) if they so choose. it also gives the options to keep some back and then release it later. Apple and BSD definitely seem to have benefitted from this.
Yes it's a shame that contributions between BSD and GPL projects tend to be one-way. But the changes are still more accessible than when companies which use and don't return, albeit admittedly less accessible than if still under BSD license.
That said, it should be technically possible to contribute to both - albeit you'd need to get the timing right. Find BSD code. Make any changes that you'll need in the GPL software without incorporating them yet and release the modified code under BSD license. Then as the GPL license allows you to take BSD licensed code there's nothing stopping you from then re-using your own modifications in the GPL project too.
It does just boils down to choice. If the GPL doesn't suit your project (like needing to keep somethings secret, even if just for a while) then you don't have to use it. If the BSD license doesn't suit your needs then you don't have to use it. All it means is that your choice of license might restrict what outside code you have access to, but that's no different from licensing code from other companies really.
GPL isn't perfect. But it covers a niche that the BSD license doesn't. Similarly the BSD license grants rights that teh GPL doesn't. Is this any different from any otehr case of "Right Tool for the Right Job"?
Why is it that people (mostly, but not only GPL-bashers) don't quite get that distinction?
As far as I can tell if a company altered some GPL code to do some in-house proprietary stuff and then never used that outside their organisation then it's not in violation of the GPL. (Unless I'm missing something, in-house use doesn't count as "distributing")
But the moment you want to distribute (whether or not that involves seeling) that code then you need to open up.
Why do people think (and spread) the assumption that even changes for private use must be released?
Or is it that that interpretation is right and the other is wrong?
The result is that it's impossible to incorporate GPL software into a commercial product if you wish the software to remain proprietary. With PHP software, no problem.
I think the GPL definitely has its place. I think it's good to know you can write something and publish it under a license that meann anyone can benefit from it, but also you (and the code) can benefit from other people's contributions.
I also think that other licenses (like BSD) are good in that it's like a goodwill version where people can contribute if they choose, and if not then they can still use the code in proprietary systems. Although I prefer software that is free and/or Free these days, I also accept that proprietary/closed software isn't going anywhere quite yet. Heck, I personally think that a BSD-style license would be more appealing to companies using proprietary (or licensed-from-others) components. Then can use what they find, contribute what they can, and keep back what they need.
As at least one other comment has stated the problem is when every organisation and it's mother decides to use its own specialised license. There's the GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, Apache License, and a whole load more besides.
I know that the GPL and BSD licenses appear to be the opposite extremes of open licensing, but do there really need to be quite so many in-between licenses?
This is what seems kinda redundant about the PHP license. To an extent it seems more corporate-friendly than the GPL, as you can use the code in derivatives without having to release all the changes. And as I said above, I can see why that is going to be important.
But it also looks like they don't like the restrictions of the GPL yet want more restrictions than the BSD or MIT licenses. I know they're fully within their rights to do this but it does seem a bit petty from one angle. To my untrained eye (though I have been looking through the licenses) it looks like it's all about control. Yes they have "released" the source, but it looks like issues of control to me. They want their restrictions and no-one else's. And to me this makes them appear almost as stubborn on these issues as RMS is, only in the other direction.
Of course, I barely understand licensing. And maybe there are subtleties in the various licenses that I simply can't fathom. But maybe some sort of general license covering this middle-ground that the GPL and BSD-style licenses don't cover would be good, as at least it'd make things clearer. As it is there are so many different licenses you'd need to be a lawyer to figure out which licenses are compatible with which others...
...which brings a thought. Has anyone ever created a comparison chart of which licenses can and can't be used with which others? Something like that would be a godsend for anyone who can't understand legalspeak.
If they want to improve the experience of Mozilla users then asking for failure stories is defintiely half of what they need to do. Find out what went wrong, what was missing, things like that.
Similarly they need to find out what is holding people off from switching - especially organisations. That measn they can find out what bits (that are under their control) they can work on.
There are always going to be some organisations who are unable to switch. And some of those reason are probably outside the scope of what the Mozilla Foundation can do.
Corporate websites and internal web applications that only work under IE are going to be a problem for as long as people write them. But there's also the other aspect. Education.
I don't mean as is "Educate Users that there are other things" here. I mean school and college courses. I've talked to course tutors, and what is important when teaching any computer skills to complete beginners is teaching them one way with one program. Although I personally prefer a more abstract method that isn't reliant on one platform, I can see the point. The problem is that currently teaching people "The Internet" often means IE.
Take the European Computer Driving License as just one example. The course material is Windows-centric - in fact it's XP-centric which does cause problems when 98 gives different results on certain tasks. The internet module seems to focus on IE for the web-browsing units. I think the tests have been written solely around IE, as are the course materials. (I've checked, and switching away from IE would need significantly different course material, and I'm not sure they even have any available)
This is a problem, though. As it means that many people who are "qualified" in using a computer are bing started out without a knowledge of anything other than IE. (Or Office, or Windows, for that matter) And unfortunately I think this is outside the scope of what a Mozilla Faoundation "switch" campaign could manage.
(I'd love to look back in 5 years, though, and find out I was dead wrong on that last point)
I think the thing about Tabbed Browsing being such a mentioned feature is 'cos it's the icing on the cake, so to speak.
Mozilla (and Opera) does tend to be more standards compliant, more secure, and more stable. It's the reason we switch from IE. However useful features like tabbed browsing can be why we enjoy having switched from IE. The features alone aren't what make it special, it's when added to the other advantages.
IE having tabbed browsing would be nice. OK, standards-compliant and more stable would be important - but honestly, what are the chances of that happening as things stand?
Besides, we can't see security or stability quite as easily. And standards-compliance isn't quite so visible as too many people still write sites for IE. But when I have to use IE for whatever reason (like a work PC without Firefox, or an Internet Cafe) then it's tabbed browsing that is most apparent to be missing.
This is mainly because it truly separates the web browsing interface from the rest of the GUI (e.g. alt-tab doesn't cycle through browser tabs, ironically, but a separate shortcut will)
Errrrm, this isn't inconsistant. Alt-tab won't switch as it's one window - but other programs have windows-within-windows. (Word used to, before the bastards changes it to each file having it's own window...) Ctrl+tab is the way to switch between windows/tabs programs like this. It's acting just the same as other programs in that respect.
Browser tabs represent what used to be separate windows. When means of managing and navigating between windows/tabs start varying, then the interface starts to break down.
Yeah, but this "Single WIndow for Every Page or File" mentality is a pain. Well, it is for me anyway. I liked when Word or Excel would open all files inside one master window. The change meant that suddenly they were cluttering the taskbar with several instances of the same program.
If anything the tabbed approach is the best. It doesn't clutter up the taskbar, but the tabs let you see what's in each page.
Those sites are not serving platform-neutral HTML content with open multimedia extensions, they are written for use with IE and usually with IE on Windows only.
This is where the main problem lies. Some sites (whether intentionally or otherwise) simply won't display or work properly on anything other than Internet Explorer. As long as this happens (and as long as people like Macromedia make their plugins install differently to other Mozilla plugins) then people will always complain that "The Internet isn't working" the way they expect it to.
The main problem is that it's a vicious circle. Whether it's a corporate webdesigner or some teenage blogger somewhere, most people write sites that work for what they know. Now professional webdesigners often know better, but not all companies have them and some that do have PHBs with their own ideas. So if the person making the main decisions doesn't know about other browsers then they're not going to write pages for what they don't know about.
This causes problems as if they don't know about Mozilla or Opera or anything else then they won't write for it. Then if many pages which people visit don't run in anything other than IE then people will only browse in IE. Then they in turn won't know about other browsers enough to even check how their page looks.
I think it's the security/stability issues combined with the feature-set.
Choice is good, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. It's just that with so many flaws in IE it's getting more and more tempting to just shut away IE somewhere that it can't be accessed, and then give an alternative (whether Opera or a Mozilla-based one) that works.
Also Mozilla and Opera do have the advantage of being cross-platform. If you have multiple platforms in your organisation you can at least have the browser be a standard across them all.
Can't you comp-lain at all? After all if you live and work around there then they really shouldn't be allowed to screw up travel and commuting like that.
That said I just hate travel disruptions for any reason. I don't care if it's presidential elections in Boston, or Silverstone shutting a stretch of road in South England (if I'd been visiting friends that weekend I'd have been fucked - I don't know any other route) I don't care.
If something is important for travel then there'd better be a damn good reason for shutting it down or slowing it down. And politics and sports don't fit into either category.
I'm with you on that one. It might be different if my parents were paying for the boradband, or someone else was similarly covering my internet fees.
But as the "internet" bill-payer I can't afford to spend any extra. I spend 25 quid a month on the broadband, the games cost between 20 and 40 (depending on age and platform), and there's no way I'm spending any extra. Certainly not on something I've not even tried.
I know that for most companies the subscription-method makes most sense, and to be honest I'm not sure I can think of a model that would work better. But for me that simply means that I'm never going to play online gaming unless I manage to somehow score limitless money and time.
Now if the games themself cost no more than a tenner the story might be different, as at least it'd be worth giving a try. But at current places? Screw that.
As others have said, you can still visit a cinema with lower levels of visual than are required tor ead many websites. just because someone is visually impared enough to be unable to read a webpage doesn't mean that they can't see a movie screen.
Plus with the sound being spatial it seems that the film can still be enjoyed.
But also remember that there are other disabilities than blindness. And a better designed site that was more standard-compliant would help in these cases.
Having had a look at Odeon's site I think it would be very difficult to navigate for those with disabilites that affect hand-eye coordination. Certianly a text-based browser would allow use of the arrow-keys, which would probably be more useful to those who have disabilities interfering with using a mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you raise a good point. But i couldn't really let your comment go by without pointing out that Firefox (and otehr Gecko-based browsers for all I know) have some known rendering issues with a certain geek-news site you may have heard of.
I'm not sure which side the problem lies on (possibly Mozilla, if I read the Slash sourceforge tracker correctly), but it is kind of an amusing combination.
I agree with you on this one. Apple may be heavy-handed, but Real are acting like spoiled brats.
And come on, this is nothing to do with "Freedom of Format" on goodwill on Real's part. This is about getting a freeride on someone else's popularity and selling it be claiming "Freedom of Format".
Pure spin.
If you really want people do "buy music once and play it anywhere" then you use a format that's either popular or open, one that can be easily format-shifted, and one without DRM.
You can't make that claim with one hand whilst impementing DRM with the other.
Even before reading Apple's response, when the news first went up about what Real had done, I had an uneasy feeling. I dunno. It just feels like they've done "the right thing" for all the wrong reasons, and gone the wrong way about it.
Apple are right to be ticked. Apple probably have to be seen to do something about this. And much as I hate the idea of the DMCA it's one of the available tools in this, and Apple's lawyers would be foolish not to consider all the options - even if some of them strike a bad note with most of us.
Now I'm hoping that they squash Real on different very-non-DMCA lines. I'd rather they didn't have to resort to such "dirty tactics" - even against Real.
I say that if Real really want to make music purchased from them playable on anything, either use a more open format, or allow iTunes-like burning to CD.
Y'see that's where I start to see Apple's POV.
Apple (and other legal music stores) work on the perceived power of DRM. People have quoted Steve Jobs as saying that he knows that there's no way to make DRM rock-solid. However Apple have managed to come up with something that has enough DRM to satisfy the RIAA and their ilk, yet weak enough to stil allow users to do quite a lot with DRM files they buy.
But at least part of that is that an iPod cannot play a DRM file that it's not authorised to.
Now it's one thing when J. Random-Hacker comes up with a way around this, but another company doing it is a bad thing.
If nothing else it runs the risk of the Music Industries clamping down and insisting on iron-clad DRM and/or higher prices - and then screaming blue murder when copying doesn't stop.
It just comes over as Real trying to make a quick buck at the expense of weakening the perceived strength of Fairplay protection. And that's bad for Apple, and probably for Legal Digital Music at large.
Plus regardless of whether you think Apple was right or wrong not to grant Real a license, Real're basically getting around a License and then planning to profit from it. This is not a good thing. This is not a precedent anyone wants a big company setting.
I don't like DRM, and I don't like Licensing. however this isn't the way I particularly want to see them challenged. It's not going to end well, and the Users will be the ones to lose out the most in the long-term.
Reading this it's just occured to me that this might have been Real's plan.
To use the tired old cliche...
Yes, there is still an unknown in there. Namely getting people to buy anything from Real. not impossible, but in some circles not entirely easy.
This is a very loaded situation, and it's hard to see who (if anyone) is in the "right".
But one thing's for sure, if Apple are in the wrong, Real definitely are too.
Remember, so far Apple haven't exactly been standing idly by and letting things like Hymn and PlayFair slip by unchanllenged. Although all they've done in those cases is change things on each update so that the current versions don't work.
Apple knows what they're doing here. They could use the law and come down like a ton of bricks. But this wouldn't do anything good at all. It wouldn't stop the attempts, and it'd but Apple in a wholly bad light.
This think with Real is a whole 'nother situation. On the face of it it's similar - removing some of the restrictions on Digital music. But under the surface it's very different.
This isn't hobbyists trying to get their hardware to do what they want, nor is it "heroes" trying to work around DRM. This is a rival company using dubious methods to increase their potential customer-base at any costs - a tactic Real has been using for years.
Trying to hack a rival company's product to play your closed format in addition to their own is not a noble cause.
Problem is it's put Apple between a rock and a hard place. If they allow this, it's a bad thing. If they don't then they look like the Bad Guy.
From what I understand about iTunes (never installed it under Windows - and recently moved fully to Linux at home so not in a position to do so) it already allows you to shift (unprotected) MP3, WMA and AAC files onto the iPod. And if it doesn't take any other formats (Ogg Vorbis, for example) it's usually possible to reencode the files. Especially seeing that some people these days tend to rip in FLAC and then transcode to whatever they need afterwards from a single high-quality-yet-still-compressed source.
And for those who like to pay for music and won't (or can't) use iTMS the you can still rip from CD using iTunes. So it's not exactly as if iPod owners have no choice at all. Especially seeing that Real's store is, AFAICT, available in less places than iTMS.
Though Linux support would be nice. Those iPods look really sweet, but I'm now not in a position to use one. (Side-question: How well do the Karma and the IRiver work alongside Linux?)
Apple sure ain't perfect in this, but much as I disagree with their statement and methods I don't think they should just stand back. Real had their chance. They tried to go the license route. Apple chose to deny the request - and it was their choice to do so. And OK, Real have only gone the same route many home geeks take, but I doubt they wouldn't scream blue murder if the situation was reversed.
Notice that the Parent post didn't necessarily say that it should be the FCC doing the regulating.
Every single time something comes up about TV-censorship in the US people always spout "The FCC shoudl just regulate frequencies and leave it at that."
Which is a fair point, but not always the appropriate response to every post/article.
Yes, it looks like the FCC are the wrong people to be doing this. It's way outside their original spec, and not really what they should be doing.
Yes, I'm wary about Government (any country's government) having much direct say in what is and isn't appropriate for kids/people to watch.
Plus, to the "They should check what their kinds are watching" brigade, this is what the Parent was even saying.
(emphasis mine)
I agree with this. I don't necessarily like that it's necessary, but unfortunately with modren societies something like this is necessary.
And better Ratings than Censorship. (Although here in the UK sometimes it's hard to see the line between the two...)
But if before a program, or in the TV Guide in the papers, or the EPG there was a clearly stated rating stating what content should be expected - and that the information was accurate and trustworthy - then no censorship would be needed. Any people complaining about what their "Precious Little Angels" saw could be pointed several examples of where the program was clearly labelled and have their complaint laughed out.
Yes, parents should have final say in what their kids should watch. However, as the Parent rightly points out, they need the information to make an informed choice.
Having said all that, I don't think it's the FCC's job to do any of that. And I also don't think it's anything that should be closely controlled by politics.
Some sort fo regulatory body does need to exist, but one that is truly seperate from the government. And one where complaints from politicians have equal say (but no more) than anyone else's.
Normally I'm against things like this being compulsary - usually because it's done along the lines of "Here is what you must do to continue, by the way you have to pay to get it done."
Now if this didn't cost the broadcasters any extra (I have no idea if it would) then it certainly should be mandated. Personalyl I don't like the idea of "other people" deciding what is and isn't suitable, but it seems that that's the way things are going. So if it's going to happen then I'd rather that it was "tagged and flagged" and the final decision made at the viewer's end, rather than "tagged and gagged" and either not broadcast at all or severaly dumbed down.
By all means say that violent acts are unsuitable, that human bodies should be shown fully covered at all times, and that certain words really shouldn't be heard.
But put the switch at my end, not yours. If parents really want to allow their kids to watch unsupervised at times[*] then let them. But also allow them the option of restricting what appears on the box. Though prefereably not by restricting me in the crossfire. (Flag in good, cancelling broadcast bad.)
[*] Eventually you have to trust your kids, and nothing winds them up more than constantly checking up on what they're doing. Which is why I don't mind some sort of inbuilt restrictions - as long as they're always overridable.
Plus although I do kinda believe that watching alongside your kids is probably a good thing, it's not always viable.
Oh yes. That irritates on so many levels. It's also worse when combined with two of the major uses of Plot in RPGs.
Not that I don't like plot. I love it. But still...
Exposition followed by no Save Option:
You go into a new level, boss fight, or whatever. There then follows a segment of plot. The first time you go through it it's fine, but you often have no chance to save before going into the action. So if you die (and with Boss-fights it can take a few goes to get right...) you've got to sit through the exposition again. It's not as bad when you can skip these segments, but in some games you can't.
Post-battle Story Mode: After several hours of attempts, a long battle, and a good helping of pure luck you finally win a Boss Battle. Geek-instincts scream "Save now, before you do anything else." Instead you're treated to a 5-minute unskippable section of Story Mode. (The Final Fantasy games are notorious for this)
Usually this would have the bad timing to occur when I'm already running late for something. Meaning I either had to be more late, or just power-off and hope I could still win the next time. (I was reluctant to leave the console running when I went out after an incident with a SNES, a loose power-connection, and a kick-on-return induced reset)
I just wish that after major battles the first thing you were treated to was a save-point and not a plot segment.
I have to say that I like the feature in recent Square-Enix games where you can save-quit during a battle, and re-enter it later. (Albeit you can only load it once) It means that at least you don't have to lose progress in an important battle if you have to leave.
Seriously, it's getting worse.
It's like they don't want material to enter the Public Domain. Ever. Hell, forget "like", they don't want it.
The problem is I don't think I like the justifications. Remixes and samples without having to pay. What a tragedy. And other companies could release "Best Of" compilations at 10 $LOCAL_CURRENCY, rather than the 20+ they try to sell at.
It's getting ridiculous.
Too shortsighted.
What you also forget is that political decisions like this (especially when influenced by big-business) do tend to spread. Slowly but surely. If this goes through in the US then it's only a matter of time before they start puching for the same thing in Europe, Canada, Australia, and everywhere else.
And although I don't think legislation is "bought" to quite so high a level in other countries I'm pretty sure the politicians do fall for the FUD and exaggerations put around that "Piracy is Bad and Leads To Loss Of Otherwise Assured Sales".
I might be in the UK, but I get scared about every potential bad American law, because I know it won't take long before they start to push for the same changes everywhere else.
TiggsPurposely or not, it does piss us off.
"Specific Market" is outdated. When you didn't know what was available elsewhere in the world they could get away with it. Now information about stuff can be all around the world almost the moment it's been announced. The only issue that matters to actual players is localisation, and even then not every player, and not in every case.
Changing Final Fantasy dialogue to English so I can read it is understandable. Losing the DDR songs I actually like and replacing them with chart-crap I genuinely can't bear to listen to is a total mystery.
The "problem" that Sony (and any other company) face now is that people now know when the games that they actually like are available elsewhere. So why the hell don't they adapt, stop staggering releases and actually release same-language versions simultaneously. Unless they do, the need to import ain't gonna go away.
I've had various consoles for about 15 years now, and for the past 10 or those I've known about games available elsewhere. Suddenly I realised that there were actually games out there that appealed to me.
Sadly I lacked the cash required for the import prices. And there have been a good few games ovewr the past 10 years where I've patiently waited for the release-date only to find that it kept getting pushed back to the point that it either never got released, or I lost interest in the game. And latter would end up as a lost sale. I might not have imported or bootlegged, but I didn't buy it either.
I guess it's not really Sony's fault. But console games, like videos and DVDs, have hit a wall where the old style of regional-licensing has collided head-on with people wanting a product the moment it's available in their language (if not earlier)
I'm not a businessman, I'm a games-fan. I genuinely couldn't care less about licensing issues. I just want to play games, and make sure that the money goes to the companies involved. I don't give a damn whether it's the UK, US, or Outer-Mongolian branch - and as long as they get the money I honestly can't see why they should care either. But if they're going to insist on doing things their current way one thing becomes clear. Whether they mean to or not, the companies obviously don't care about my tastes, and it makes it hard for me to care about them.
Why, oh why did they integrate the regional-protection and copy-protection into the same check? That's where the problem comes in. They've made it impossible to circumvent the former without negating the latter.
Prsonally I have no interest in coping games. I'd rather buy mine legitimately from shops. Pretty packaging. The full instructions. The works. I do, however, have an interest in one day being able to play American or Japanese games - preferably without having to buy a second version of a console I already own that simply has one different function in it.
To me it just asks for trouble. If people could mod their consoles in a way that allowed imports but not "backups" then you get increased sales (Maybe not where you want them, but actual sales nonetheless) without the risk of those same customers saying "Stuff this, the self-burn will work anyway so why pay?"
The problem is importing, though. Maybe it pails into insignificance copared to copied games these days. But for those of us with legal UK Playstations (for UK games) who might also wish to buy and play some games that haven't been (and won't be) released over here this removes our choice. We now can't legally play these games.
I've been saying way back since the days of the SNES that the console companies should release their own devices to allow the playing of import games. If not immediately then certainly once well into the lifespan of a console.
I'm sure there's a way of a Sony/Nintendo/whoever dongle being able to tell the difference between a legit other-region game and a copy. And if they themselves provide a means of playing imports without allowing copies to play (corporate benefit) and without invalidating the warranty or risking the insides of your console to yourself or an unknown shop (user benefit) then they'd probably benefit.
Heck, what with Konami's European branches refusing to release DDR and instead giving us the likes of "Dancing Stage: Commercial Pop-tripe Edition" they've lost several sales right there. 'Cos it feels like a slap in he face to those of us who got into the series through the Japanese tracks (and can't stand Western pop...). If the device that allows you to play a legitimately purchased copy of a game requires you breaking the law, then why are people going to bother buying imports? If modding is classified as blanket-illegal then people will either not buy the games at all (Sony loses) or just pirate it instead (Sony loses).
I tend to use StepMania on my PC instead. Far less legal, but it gives me the songs I actually like. Did the UK Playstations not have a region-lock I'd have bought legit copies of the American or Japanese releases.
I know they like to have regional control over releases. But that method was dead a decade ago, and it ain't any better now. Like films people know what's out there, and sometimes there's more choice to your taste elsewhere. I can't see why that should be penalised.
I mainly use Mozilla under Windows for browsing, so it's obviously what I check under first. Plus i've found (between mine and other sites) that Mozilla is less-forgiving over HTML errors, so I tend to catch more of my dumbest mistakes straight away.
My next test tends to be IE - mainly 'cos it's in Windows and i can test it immediately. I've found this is where I pick up on where IE and Moz tend to render certain aspects of CSS differently. I'll then straighten it out, trying to make sure it either renders perfectly under both, or perfectly under Mozilla and fails nicely (i.e. "I can still read the content") under IE.
I then tend to shell into my older Linux box to test under Lynx and Links. The latter allows me to check for formatted plain text, and the former to make sure that even with minimal formatting (no tables or whatever) it's still easy enough to read and navigate.
I also will plug the laptop in and check IE (and now Firefox) on that. My main monitor runs at 1280 but the laptop is at 1024, so I can check that anything that looks fine at my resolution also still works at lower ones.
Next stage is dual-boot over to Linux. Just to make sure that whatever mozilla variant I'm using still renders the site corrently under Linux. Also to make sure that the "if all else fails" fonts (default "serif" and "sans-serif") still produce a readable page.
I should probably check it under stuff like Konqueror at this point.
I don't use Opera myself, but the first thing I do when I put my site live is to get my friend who runs Opera to see how it works on his.
I was never personally impressed by using Opera, so I've no real desire to install it on my own computer for what's basically a spare-time website. Though were I doing professional sites this would not be the case.
For personal curiosity's sake, whenever I'm online elsewhere I do have a look at how my site looks under different setups. Especially those who still insist on using 800x600.
I guess you have a point there. Many people (and not only the non-geeks) would click on a link (or even copy/paste the URL) to see what the fuss is about. Kinda like the goatse site. Though with a virus just the one visit is enough.
I think it's one of those no-win situations. You don't spread around which sites which are infected, 'cos otherwise you'd get the non-technical people clicking anyway, mischeivous/malicious people doing sneaky redirects, and and probably law suits from people complaining about slander/loss of income. Plus by keeping it secret the people involved can get their sites fixed and secured without a stupid level of public/media pressure.
However from the other side if you (as a user/admin) don't know which sites are infected how can you be sure you (or your users) aren't visiting them. Yes, you should probably be using or enforcing the utmost scrutiny to all sites anyway, but the easiest way to not get infected by a site is to not visit it at all. (Oh, and stop your browser from accepting blind-redirects or loading images from different sites from the page you're on - hmmmm, can IE block this?)
Whichever option a company (whether media, antivirus/security, or with the infected site) takes is going to cause problems. Disclosure wouldn't help that much, but secrecy doesn't help the knowledgable stay safe - plus causes a panic of "Is site-x infected?"
This is why the BSD-style license is important. It doesn't have to be always BSD or GPL for everything and never use the other. Each has its advantages. But they're totally different advantages. And the advantages go both ways.
In GPL yes there are the restrictions. This might discourage some from incorporating the GPL code, but when people do use it and distribute it then all of the changes will (or should) be released back. Plus for those who (for whatever reason) don't want their code being used in proprietary software then they have that level of protection.
Under the BSD license then anyone can use the code without having to release all used changes back. If they want to keep some changes back they can do. It also means that they can keep some back, but release the rest (like Apple, or your company) if they so choose. it also gives the options to keep some back and then release it later. Apple and BSD definitely seem to have benefitted from this.
Yes it's a shame that contributions between BSD and GPL projects tend to be one-way. But the changes are still more accessible than when companies which use and don't return, albeit admittedly less accessible than if still under BSD license.
That said, it should be technically possible to contribute to both - albeit you'd need to get the timing right. Find BSD code. Make any changes that you'll need in the GPL software without incorporating them yet and release the modified code under BSD license. Then as the GPL license allows you to take BSD licensed code there's nothing stopping you from then re-using your own modifications in the GPL project too.
It does just boils down to choice. If the GPL doesn't suit your project (like needing to keep somethings secret, even if just for a while) then you don't have to use it. If the BSD license doesn't suit your needs then you don't have to use it. All it means is that your choice of license might restrict what outside code you have access to, but that's no different from licensing code from other companies really.
GPL isn't perfect. But it covers a niche that the BSD license doesn't. Similarly the BSD license grants rights that teh GPL doesn't. Is this any different from any otehr case of "Right Tool for the Right Job"?
Why is it that people (mostly, but not only GPL-bashers) don't quite get that distinction?
As far as I can tell if a company altered some GPL code to do some in-house proprietary stuff and then never used that outside their organisation then it's not in violation of the GPL. (Unless I'm missing something, in-house use doesn't count as "distributing")
But the moment you want to distribute (whether or not that involves seeling) that code then you need to open up.
Why do people think (and spread) the assumption that even changes for private use must be released?
Or is it that that interpretation is right and the other is wrong?
I think the GPL definitely has its place. I think it's good to know you can write something and publish it under a license that meann anyone can benefit from it, but also you (and the code) can benefit from other people's contributions.
I also think that other licenses (like BSD) are good in that it's like a goodwill version where people can contribute if they choose, and if not then they can still use the code in proprietary systems. Although I prefer software that is free and/or Free these days, I also accept that proprietary/closed software isn't going anywhere quite yet. Heck, I personally think that a BSD-style license would be more appealing to companies using proprietary (or licensed-from-others) components. Then can use what they find, contribute what they can, and keep back what they need.
As at least one other comment has stated the problem is when every organisation and it's mother decides to use its own specialised license. There's the GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, Apache License, and a whole load more besides.
I know that the GPL and BSD licenses appear to be the opposite extremes of open licensing, but do there really need to be quite so many in-between licenses?
This is what seems kinda redundant about the PHP license. To an extent it seems more corporate-friendly than the GPL, as you can use the code in derivatives without having to release all the changes. And as I said above, I can see why that is going to be important.
But it also looks like they don't like the restrictions of the GPL yet want more restrictions than the BSD or MIT licenses. I know they're fully within their rights to do this but it does seem a bit petty from one angle. To my untrained eye (though I have been looking through the licenses) it looks like it's all about control. Yes they have "released" the source, but it looks like issues of control to me. They want their restrictions and no-one else's. And to me this makes them appear almost as stubborn on these issues as RMS is, only in the other direction.
Of course, I barely understand licensing. And maybe there are subtleties in the various licenses that I simply can't fathom. But maybe some sort of general license covering this middle-ground that the GPL and BSD-style licenses don't cover would be good, as at least it'd make things clearer. As it is there are so many different licenses you'd need to be a lawyer to figure out which licenses are compatible with which others...
...which brings a thought. Has anyone ever created a comparison chart of which licenses can and can't be used with which others? Something like that would be a godsend for anyone who can't understand legalspeak.
If they want to improve the experience of Mozilla users then asking for failure stories is defintiely half of what they need to do. Find out what went wrong, what was missing, things like that.
Similarly they need to find out what is holding people off from switching - especially organisations. That measn they can find out what bits (that are under their control) they can work on.
There are always going to be some organisations who are unable to switch. And some of those reason are probably outside the scope of what the Mozilla Foundation can do.
Corporate websites and internal web applications that only work under IE are going to be a problem for as long as people write them. But there's also the other aspect. Education.
I don't mean as is "Educate Users that there are other things" here. I mean school and college courses. I've talked to course tutors, and what is important when teaching any computer skills to complete beginners is teaching them one way with one program. Although I personally prefer a more abstract method that isn't reliant on one platform, I can see the point. The problem is that currently teaching people "The Internet" often means IE.
Take the European Computer Driving License as just one example. The course material is Windows-centric - in fact it's XP-centric which does cause problems when 98 gives different results on certain tasks. The internet module seems to focus on IE for the web-browsing units. I think the tests have been written solely around IE, as are the course materials. (I've checked, and switching away from IE would need significantly different course material, and I'm not sure they even have any available)
This is a problem, though. As it means that many people who are "qualified" in using a computer are bing started out without a knowledge of anything other than IE. (Or Office, or Windows, for that matter) And unfortunately I think this is outside the scope of what a Mozilla Faoundation "switch" campaign could manage.
(I'd love to look back in 5 years, though, and find out I was dead wrong on that last point)
I think the thing about Tabbed Browsing being such a mentioned feature is 'cos it's the icing on the cake, so to speak.
Mozilla (and Opera) does tend to be more standards compliant, more secure, and more stable. It's the reason we switch from IE. However useful features like tabbed browsing can be why we enjoy having switched from IE. The features alone aren't what make it special, it's when added to the other advantages.
IE having tabbed browsing would be nice. OK, standards-compliant and more stable would be important - but honestly, what are the chances of that happening as things stand?
Besides, we can't see security or stability quite as easily. And standards-compliance isn't quite so visible as too many people still write sites for IE. But when I have to use IE for whatever reason (like a work PC without Firefox, or an Internet Cafe) then it's tabbed browsing that is most apparent to be missing.
Errrrm, this isn't inconsistant. Alt-tab won't switch as it's one window - but other programs have windows-within-windows. (Word used to, before the bastards changes it to each file having it's own window...)
Ctrl+tab is the way to switch between windows/tabs programs like this. It's acting just the same as other programs in that respect.
Yeah, but this "Single WIndow for Every Page or File" mentality is a pain. Well, it is for me anyway. I liked when Word or Excel would open all files inside one master window. The change meant that suddenly they were cluttering the taskbar with several instances of the same program.
If anything the tabbed approach is the best. It doesn't clutter up the taskbar, but the tabs let you see what's in each page.
This is where the main problem lies. Some sites (whether intentionally or otherwise) simply won't display or work properly on anything other than Internet Explorer. As long as this happens (and as long as people like Macromedia make their plugins install differently to other Mozilla plugins) then people will always complain that "The Internet isn't working" the way they expect it to.
The main problem is that it's a vicious circle. Whether it's a corporate webdesigner or some teenage blogger somewhere, most people write sites that work for what they know. Now professional webdesigners often know better, but not all companies have them and some that do have PHBs with their own ideas. So if the person making the main decisions doesn't know about other browsers then they're not going to write pages for what they don't know about.
TiggsThis causes problems as if they don't know about Mozilla or Opera or anything else then they won't write for it. Then if many pages which people visit don't run in anything other than IE then people will only browse in IE. Then they in turn won't know about other browsers enough to even check how their page looks.
I think it's the security/stability issues combined with the feature-set.
Choice is good, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. It's just that with so many flaws in IE it's getting more and more tempting to just shut away IE somewhere that it can't be accessed, and then give an alternative (whether Opera or a Mozilla-based one) that works.
Also Mozilla and Opera do have the advantage of being cross-platform. If you have multiple platforms in your organisation you can at least have the browser be a standard across them all.
I'm guessing I already know the answer, but...
Can't you comp-lain at all? After all if you live and work around there then they really shouldn't be allowed to screw up travel and commuting like that.
That said I just hate travel disruptions for any reason. I don't care if it's presidential elections in Boston, or Silverstone shutting a stretch of road in South England (if I'd been visiting friends that weekend I'd have been fucked - I don't know any other route) I don't care.
TiggsIf something is important for travel then there'd better be a damn good reason for shutting it down or slowing it down. And politics and sports don't fit into either category.
I'm with you on that one. It might be different if my parents were paying for the boradband, or someone else was similarly covering my internet fees.
But as the "internet" bill-payer I can't afford to spend any extra. I spend 25 quid a month on the broadband, the games cost between 20 and 40 (depending on age and platform), and there's no way I'm spending any extra. Certainly not on something I've not even tried.
I know that for most companies the subscription-method makes most sense, and to be honest I'm not sure I can think of a model that would work better. But for me that simply means that I'm never going to play online gaming unless I manage to somehow score limitless money and time.
Now if the games themself cost no more than a tenner the story might be different, as at least it'd be worth giving a try. But at current places? Screw that.
As others have said, you can still visit a cinema with lower levels of visual than are required tor ead many websites. just because someone is visually impared enough to be unable to read a webpage doesn't mean that they can't see a movie screen.
Plus with the sound being spatial it seems that the film can still be enjoyed.
But also remember that there are other disabilities than blindness. And a better designed site that was more standard-compliant would help in these cases.
TiggsHaving had a look at Odeon's site I think it would be very difficult to navigate for those with disabilites that affect hand-eye coordination. Certianly a text-based browser would allow use of the arrow-keys, which would probably be more useful to those who have disabilities interfering with using a mouse.