Exactly. Apple is OS X. Apple is NOT PPC. Frankly, I see nothing but good coming from this entire situation. Neither side can show some BS benchmark. The hardware is the same... okay. So... now what? Now it's software vs. software and seriously, after using OS X, who the fuck wants Windows!?
I don't underestimate it. I'm sitting here looking at the stats for the two largest websites I develop for. Honestly, it's not the number of Win2k installations out there that matters. It's the browser they're running and the type of people that GENERALLY use it.
Honestly, most of the people I knew and serviced that got bit in the ass by Me didn't switch to 2k, they went back to 98se.
I'm a service tech part time. Maybe my personal polling is skewed, but seriously... I'm fixing 9x boxes and XP boxes 99% of the time. People running 2k don't call. It's not because 2000 is super secure compared to XP or THAT MUCH less problematic. It's because of the types of users.
And as I said above in another reply, web devs have a choice. I'm choosing to move forward and not worry about making things look perfect for these niche groups. Usable? Yes. Identical? No.
Unless your site caters to those types, no biggie. 4% or so of the people that hit my main site still use IE5.x! The site works in IE5.x and is useable, but without all the bells and whistles. IE6 will become the same. When the "alternative" browsers eclipse IE6 in usage (which they will) then I won't be freaking out trying to make sure everything checks out in stupid IE6.
Give IE7 a couple months for market penetration and the days of being chained down to IE6 are over. (Of course the days of being chained down to IE7 will have just begun.) The groups using Win2k are niche. The number of people still using 95, 98, Me and NT 4.0 combined are about the same as those using 2k. I'm not going to bend over backwards to support them, am I?
And remember, the businesses that you're talking about are a percentage of a percentage. That's not the Win2k crowd. That's a fraction of the Win2k crowd. It's smaller than the 8% of the people I'm logging that are still running 98.
Unless we, as web developers, start using all the new tricks to get people to want to upgrade, things are going to stagnate. Web standards mean that we don't have to leave anyone in the dark but it also means we can exploit new stuff in new browsers at the same time. You just have to be smart about how you put everything together.
THe difference now is simply that, "Hey, there's a newer version of IE out, sorry." With IE6 sitting in its own feces for 4 years, I couldn't say that. It was still the "latest and greatest" in terms of Microsoft. Basically, I can now pass the buck and blame on to Microsoft.
All devs have a choice. For better or for worse I'm choosing to move forward.
No kidding. For a browser that "won't be able to keep up" it was chosen by Apple OVER Gecko because of its smaller size, faster speed and overall elegance. In OS X, I use Safari. In Linux I use Konq. It's just plain faster than Gecko for most rendering. (Though its repaints with JavaScript and:hover can be a little slow.)
I know. My x86 laptop runs Gentoo and I use OS X at home. When I say I use Win2k as a developer... I mean that I pretty much use it to look at IE6. That's it. (And actually Crossover office does an excellent job with IE6 as long as I'm not using Javascript.)
It's a downside that I'm gonna have to buy the OS to develop for it. I'm not even really complaining, since it's the cost of doing business. But who is happy to fork out $100?
I think you overestimate Win2k's usage. Not only that, but the kinds of people who use Win2k. Remember that while XP is based off the NT setup it was also the first to be marketed toward home users.
Yes, Win2k is NT and yes it supports DirectX but it was never marketed toward home users. The people using Win2k are professionals, nerds, techies, server admins, etc. These are the same kinds of people that keep their software up to date and are at least a little bit security conscious. The kind of people who still cling on to 2k aren't part of the senseless mob that generally uses IE in the first place.
You're right, not EVERYONE will download Firefox. Not EVERYONE has stopped using older versions of IE (still a good sized handful of people using 5 out there). Not EVERYONE has stopped using fucking Netscape 4.x either.
What changes is that when IE 7 comes out, there is an expectation that things won't work in IE 6 anymore and that expectation wasn't there before. Honestly, the worst thing this will do is force some 2k users to switch to something besides IE.
The only real downside is that webdevs like me who use Win2k for IE testing are going to have to get XP now too. Teh suck. Gotta make sure it works in IE 7 too. Bleh.
Ignore IE? Develop for a single browser? These are very, very bad ideas.
I'm an avid user of "other" browsers. I use more than just Firefox. I like Firefox fine, but I like Konqueror and Safari even better. Opera ain't bad either, but its quirks are too much for me to use regularly.
Web standards are how we should focus our development and not simply on a single browser. Mind you, on the sites I develop there are often bonuses for people not using IE (:hover on things besides links being one of the most common as well as some sophisticated CSS that IE doesn't get) but everything still works and is perfectly presentable to IE.
Force Mac users, when they have a compliant, modern browser, to use Firefox? What a joke. It might be superior in Windows, but on Macs Safari is king. It's lighter and it's WAY faster.
Well, that and socialist wing wants to solve the "monopoly" problems by turning the government into a giant monopoly. The fascists want to bundle everything together and create de facto law through corporations.
Seriously, at least the fucking socialists are HONEST (relatively speaking) about their direction! The fascists are nothing but lying fuck bags.
And I don't think the Greens are much help. The uber left? Their solution to the corporation is listed above. They won't help.
Libertarian is about the only direction to go. Pot smoking and movie "terrorism" (*rolls eyes*) do not justify prisons. It's ridiculous. Our system is nightmarishly ridiculous.
Why do people do that? That's what gets me. What drives these rich assholes to destroy freedom and lives? Do they just get off on being mean? What drives these fuckers!? They have everything and it's not enough?
Come on. In Ep IV you see other droids hopping around on the Blockade Runner that looks just like C3PO. There is a droid in EP I that looks the same that comes to serve Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon. "I want to know why he didn't recognize THAT particular silver Honda Civic when he'd driven just five years before."
I'm not saying the movie didn't have its issues. I'm not saying there weren't some plot problems, but let's not nitpick shit that isn't even a problem.
And while I'm at it... I'M NOT A FUCKING ROBOT! FUCK THESE STUPID THINGS! (Bastards.) Don't you think it's bad when the "solution" is more annoying than the problem?
I SHOULD have linked that! I ran across that a couple weeks ago (although truth be told I haven't played with it much) but it looks very promising. Have you had good personal experience with it?
Yeah well... I expect hell to freeze over first. However...
1. I'm a sad, sad person but I would rather see everyone else support IE's box model. It's proposed that CSS3 will allow a person to choose which box model they are using. (I'm all for web standards and test my sites on Windows, Linux and Mac and about every browser I can, but the wc3 box model sucks ass.) Or hell, you could even add something like total-width: to CSS. I don't care. Having no way to create one object with a % width that also has padding and borders of a specific size is retarded.
Honestly, the world would be better off in this case if non-IE browsers supported the IE box model and forced the w3c to buckle on it. For liquid layouts IE's is vastly superior. In fact, I can't see ANY advantage to the standards compliant box model.
2. I forget where, but I seem to remember reading multiple times that PNGs will FINALLY be supported properly in IE7. Though, the behavior: bit and some.htcs have made this less hellish than it used to.
3. Not gonna happen. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it does, but it's simply not gonna happen. Right now I'm just rooting for selectors. If they get those going I'll be REALLY happy. +, >, [attrib=], etc, that's be great.:hover working on all elements would be a nice addition too.
4. Dunno anything about that in IE7.
Hell. I'd be happy if they'd fix the fucking display bugs with the portion of CSS that they DO "support." There's a novel idea. (Safari is curretly my browser of choice... now if only its input widgets obeyed CSS properly. *sigh*)
Although in the end, your last statement is the most important. I don't care about glitzy tabs or vector based widgets or some new method of rendering fonts better. MS, your HTML rendering engine sucks. It sucks big time. You need to stop hiring programmers from the Special Olympics for Nerds to handle your web browser.
And you know, while I'm going on let me just say I fucking hate that fucking piece of shit browser. Never has Microsoft's ability to stifle a market been clearer. The adoption of new, excellent technologies on the web is at a crawl because they haven't felt the need to upgrade that travesty of a browser in umpteen years. FUCK YOU ASSHOLES! These aren't even just gee-whiz features but also things that assist with accessibility.
I really, really hope there is a special place in hell for corporate executives who cause this kind of irritation. I also hope they're sodomized by some uber demon in the pits of damnation for hour of my life and other web devs that was wasted taking a perfectly standards compliant site and trying to get it to work all right in their garbage browser. FUCK YOU MICROSOFT!
Woah. I get REALLY annoyed just thinking about it.
Think tabout it before you spout your homophobic Crap in future...
He didn't sound all that "afraid of the same." Heh. Oh. Oh! You meant "afraid of homosexuals." Well, he didn't sound afraid of them either. That word is so fucking stupid.
On top of that congress more or less promised the American people that it would NEVER be used for ID purposes. Back then there was still some semblance of the concept of states' rights. In fact if you can have a look at your grandparents' cards. they'll specifically say: "Not to be used for identification." (Or something very similar.)
CSS2's primary flaw (and really the only thing that gives me the red ass) is how it handles the box model. IE's nonstandard method is just plain better, ESPECIALLY when working with liquid layouts. (And before anyone gets on my case, my browser of choice is Konq, so blow me.)
It works like this, in CSS when you create a div and give it a width/height of 100px, a border of 2px and padding of 10px you get a box that's actually 124px wide since padding and border are calculated on top of width. In standard CSS2 "width" applies to the width of content and not to the box as a whole. In IE width is the total width.
Standard CSS2 becomes really annoying when you want, say, multiple columns set at a liquid width with padding and borders. If you want two columns at 50% (not a good idea for web design anyway, but a simple example) there's no good way to do it in CSS2 if you want to give the divs padding or a border of any kind. (I don't consider container divs a "good way".) Give them 2px borders and suddenly their width is 50% + 2px which breaks the layout. No one doing design thinks in terms of content width. We think in terms of total width. (Unless you've worked with CSS for a while, then your brain becomes miswired.) In IE you can use 50% and then go ahead and add padding and borders and life is peachy and there's no need for any container divs or other annoying workarounds.
In theory, CSS3 will let you define which method you want to use for boxes in a stylesheet. So by about 2010 none of this will be an issue anyway. *sigh*
Honestly, I like CSS a lot. The box model is my only real beef with it. Most of the other issues I have aren't with CSS but with the differing implimentations.
Seriously, if IE would just support fucking selectors ( > and + ), a few more of the pseudo classes (:active), pseudo elements (:before,:after) and attribute selectors ([type="text"]) I'd be happy! The selectors REALLY HELP keep things contextual and reduce the need to use classes for very much. And while I'm whining let me include... GET YOUR FUCKING PNG SUPPORT WORKING YOU MONOPOLISTIC COCKSUCKERS!
Ahhh...
Also, any developers interested in having some fun with getting IE to work in a standards compliant way, take a look at this:
And if elections had anything to do with legitimacy, I might agree with you. However, if GWB can get re-elected... you know what I'm saying? That and even if the new guy wins, what does it matter? After getting a pocket stuffed with bills and his own ticket to living forever he's gonna vote exactly the way he's told.
He's also not talking into account the fact that no matter how cheap the actual process becomes people with money control the people in Government. Just have the FDA tack on some arbitrary "long life excise" tax because the treatment isn't "necessary" and that can keep the price up... well... how long are these rich bastards going to live?
"It's a victory for reason over religious mumbo-jumbo."
Heh. So a sticker that states: "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." should be banned and somehow this is "a victory for reason?"
I don't know who scares me more, Fundementalist Christian freaks or the people in your camp who keep telling yourselves you're "intellectual" and "scientific."
Evolution is a theory and like EVERYTHING, from theology to politics to science it should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
The Christians cheer when their crap is stuffed down everyone's throats and you cheer when people are silenced. The world's problems are obvious.
So I'm reading the article and I run across this in one of the questions:
"They have resurrected the x86 version and added several interesting features--containers, DTrace, and ZFS, for example..."
Followed by this:
"If you thought Linux had issues with driver availability for some things, let's see you try Solaris/x86. (Editors' note: Drivers enable an operating system to communicate with specific hardware such as a video card or network adapter.)"
Now... can someone explain to me why the editors figure that people who have some idea of what x86, DTrace, containers and ZFS are wouldn't know what a driver is?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Apple is OS X. Apple is NOT PPC. Frankly, I see nothing but good coming from this entire situation. Neither side can show some BS benchmark. The hardware is the same... okay. So... now what? Now it's software vs. software and seriously, after using OS X, who the fuck wants Windows!?
I don't underestimate it. I'm sitting here looking at the stats for the two largest websites I develop for. Honestly, it's not the number of Win2k installations out there that matters. It's the browser they're running and the type of people that GENERALLY use it.
Honestly, most of the people I knew and serviced that got bit in the ass by Me didn't switch to 2k, they went back to 98se.
I'm a service tech part time. Maybe my personal polling is skewed, but seriously... I'm fixing 9x boxes and XP boxes 99% of the time. People running 2k don't call. It's not because 2000 is super secure compared to XP or THAT MUCH less problematic. It's because of the types of users.
And as I said above in another reply, web devs have a choice. I'm choosing to move forward and not worry about making things look perfect for these niche groups. Usable? Yes. Identical? No.
Unless your site caters to those types, no biggie. 4% or so of the people that hit my main site still use IE5.x! The site works in IE5.x and is useable, but without all the bells and whistles. IE6 will become the same. When the "alternative" browsers eclipse IE6 in usage (which they will) then I won't be freaking out trying to make sure everything checks out in stupid IE6.
Give IE7 a couple months for market penetration and the days of being chained down to IE6 are over. (Of course the days of being chained down to IE7 will have just begun.) The groups using Win2k are niche. The number of people still using 95, 98, Me and NT 4.0 combined are about the same as those using 2k. I'm not going to bend over backwards to support them, am I?
And remember, the businesses that you're talking about are a percentage of a percentage. That's not the Win2k crowd. That's a fraction of the Win2k crowd. It's smaller than the 8% of the people I'm logging that are still running 98.
Unless we, as web developers, start using all the new tricks to get people to want to upgrade, things are going to stagnate. Web standards mean that we don't have to leave anyone in the dark but it also means we can exploit new stuff in new browsers at the same time. You just have to be smart about how you put everything together.
THe difference now is simply that, "Hey, there's a newer version of IE out, sorry." With IE6 sitting in its own feces for 4 years, I couldn't say that. It was still the "latest and greatest" in terms of Microsoft. Basically, I can now pass the buck and blame on to Microsoft.
All devs have a choice. For better or for worse I'm choosing to move forward.
No kidding. For a browser that "won't be able to keep up" it was chosen by Apple OVER Gecko because of its smaller size, faster speed and overall elegance. In OS X, I use Safari. In Linux I use Konq. It's just plain faster than Gecko for most rendering. (Though its repaints with JavaScript and :hover can be a little slow.)
I know. My x86 laptop runs Gentoo and I use OS X at home. When I say I use Win2k as a developer... I mean that I pretty much use it to look at IE6. That's it. (And actually Crossover office does an excellent job with IE6 as long as I'm not using Javascript.)
It's a downside that I'm gonna have to buy the OS to develop for it. I'm not even really complaining, since it's the cost of doing business. But who is happy to fork out $100?
I think you overestimate Win2k's usage. Not only that, but the kinds of people who use Win2k. Remember that while XP is based off the NT setup it was also the first to be marketed toward home users.
Yes, Win2k is NT and yes it supports DirectX but it was never marketed toward home users. The people using Win2k are professionals, nerds, techies, server admins, etc. These are the same kinds of people that keep their software up to date and are at least a little bit security conscious. The kind of people who still cling on to 2k aren't part of the senseless mob that generally uses IE in the first place.
You're right, not EVERYONE will download Firefox. Not EVERYONE has stopped using older versions of IE (still a good sized handful of people using 5 out there). Not EVERYONE has stopped using fucking Netscape 4.x either.
What changes is that when IE 7 comes out, there is an expectation that things won't work in IE 6 anymore and that expectation wasn't there before. Honestly, the worst thing this will do is force some 2k users to switch to something besides IE.
The only real downside is that webdevs like me who use Win2k for IE testing are going to have to get XP now too. Teh suck. Gotta make sure it works in IE 7 too. Bleh.
Ignore IE? Develop for a single browser? These are very, very bad ideas.
I'm an avid user of "other" browsers. I use more than just Firefox. I like Firefox fine, but I like Konqueror and Safari even better. Opera ain't bad either, but its quirks are too much for me to use regularly.
Web standards are how we should focus our development and not simply on a single browser. Mind you, on the sites I develop there are often bonuses for people not using IE (:hover on things besides links being one of the most common as well as some sophisticated CSS that IE doesn't get) but everything still works and is perfectly presentable to IE.
Force Mac users, when they have a compliant, modern browser, to use Firefox? What a joke. It might be superior in Windows, but on Macs Safari is king. It's lighter and it's WAY faster.
Hehehe... speak for yourself.
Well, that and socialist wing wants to solve the "monopoly" problems by turning the government into a giant monopoly. The fascists want to bundle everything together and create de facto law through corporations.
Seriously, at least the fucking socialists are HONEST (relatively speaking) about their direction! The fascists are nothing but lying fuck bags.
And I don't think the Greens are much help. The uber left? Their solution to the corporation is listed above. They won't help.
Libertarian is about the only direction to go. Pot smoking and movie "terrorism" (*rolls eyes*) do not justify prisons. It's ridiculous. Our system is nightmarishly ridiculous.
Why do people do that? That's what gets me. What drives these rich assholes to destroy freedom and lives? Do they just get off on being mean? What drives these fuckers!? They have everything and it's not enough?
Come on. In Ep IV you see other droids hopping around on the Blockade Runner that looks just like C3PO. There is a droid in EP I that looks the same that comes to serve Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon. "I want to know why he didn't recognize THAT particular silver Honda Civic when he'd driven just five years before."
I'm not saying the movie didn't have its issues. I'm not saying there weren't some plot problems, but let's not nitpick shit that isn't even a problem.
And while I'm at it... I'M NOT A FUCKING ROBOT! FUCK THESE STUPID THINGS! (Bastards.) Don't you think it's bad when the "solution" is more annoying than the problem?
I SHOULD have linked that! I ran across that a couple weeks ago (although truth be told I haven't played with it much) but it looks very promising. Have you had good personal experience with it?
Yeah well... I expect hell to freeze over first. However...
.htcs have made this less hellish than it used to.
1. I'm a sad, sad person but I would rather see everyone else support IE's box model. It's proposed that CSS3 will allow a person to choose which box model they are using. (I'm all for web standards and test my sites on Windows, Linux and Mac and about every browser I can, but the wc3 box model sucks ass.) Or hell, you could even add something like total-width: to CSS. I don't care. Having no way to create one object with a % width that also has padding and borders of a specific size is retarded.
Honestly, the world would be better off in this case if non-IE browsers supported the IE box model and forced the w3c to buckle on it. For liquid layouts IE's is vastly superior. In fact, I can't see ANY advantage to the standards compliant box model.
2. I forget where, but I seem to remember reading multiple times that PNGs will FINALLY be supported properly in IE7. Though, the behavior: bit and some
3. Not gonna happen. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it does, but it's simply not gonna happen. Right now I'm just rooting for selectors. If they get those going I'll be REALLY happy. +, >, [attrib=], etc, that's be great.:hover working on all elements would be a nice addition too.
4. Dunno anything about that in IE7.
Hell. I'd be happy if they'd fix the fucking display bugs with the portion of CSS that they DO "support." There's a novel idea. (Safari is curretly my browser of choice... now if only its input widgets obeyed CSS properly. *sigh*)
Although in the end, your last statement is the most important. I don't care about glitzy tabs or vector based widgets or some new method of rendering fonts better. MS, your HTML rendering engine sucks. It sucks big time. You need to stop hiring programmers from the Special Olympics for Nerds to handle your web browser.
And you know, while I'm going on let me just say I fucking hate that fucking piece of shit browser. Never has Microsoft's ability to stifle a market been clearer. The adoption of new, excellent technologies on the web is at a crawl because they haven't felt the need to upgrade that travesty of a browser in umpteen years. FUCK YOU ASSHOLES! These aren't even just gee-whiz features but also things that assist with accessibility.
I really, really hope there is a special place in hell for corporate executives who cause this kind of irritation. I also hope they're sodomized by some uber demon in the pits of damnation for hour of my life and other web devs that was wasted taking a perfectly standards compliant site and trying to get it to work all right in their garbage browser. FUCK YOU MICROSOFT!
Woah. I get REALLY annoyed just thinking about it.
Okay... what the fuck?
Think tabout it before you spout your homophobic Crap in future...
He didn't sound all that "afraid of the same." Heh. Oh. Oh! You meant "afraid of homosexuals." Well, he didn't sound afraid of them either. That word is so fucking stupid.
Hey, if you think that's confusing let me add this to the mix:
OS X over Linux == gay.
On top of that congress more or less promised the American people that it would NEVER be used for ID purposes. Back then there was still some semblance of the concept of states' rights. In fact if you can have a look at your grandparents' cards. they'll specifically say: "Not to be used for identification." (Or something very similar.)
Hell, we pay for that most of the time too!
Thank you so much for that image. I now have to commit ritual suicide.
I prefer IE's method. However, I think most of us will end up agreeing that being able to choose is the best way to handle things.
CSS2's primary flaw (and really the only thing that gives me the red ass) is how it handles the box model. IE's nonstandard method is just plain better, ESPECIALLY when working with liquid layouts. (And before anyone gets on my case, my browser of choice is Konq, so blow me.)
:after) and attribute selectors ([type="text"]) I'd be happy! The selectors REALLY HELP keep things contextual and reduce the need to use classes for very much. And while I'm whining let me include... GET YOUR FUCKING PNG SUPPORT WORKING YOU MONOPOLISTIC COCKSUCKERS!
It works like this, in CSS when you create a div and give it a width/height of 100px, a border of 2px and padding of 10px you get a box that's actually 124px wide since padding and border are calculated on top of width. In standard CSS2 "width" applies to the width of content and not to the box as a whole. In IE width is the total width.
Standard CSS2 becomes really annoying when you want, say, multiple columns set at a liquid width with padding and borders. If you want two columns at 50% (not a good idea for web design anyway, but a simple example) there's no good way to do it in CSS2 if you want to give the divs padding or a border of any kind. (I don't consider container divs a "good way".) Give them 2px borders and suddenly their width is 50% + 2px which breaks the layout. No one doing design thinks in terms of content width. We think in terms of total width. (Unless you've worked with CSS for a while, then your brain becomes miswired.) In IE you can use 50% and then go ahead and add padding and borders and life is peachy and there's no need for any container divs or other annoying workarounds.
In theory, CSS3 will let you define which method you want to use for boxes in a stylesheet. So by about 2010 none of this will be an issue anyway. *sigh*
Honestly, I like CSS a lot. The box model is my only real beef with it. Most of the other issues I have aren't with CSS but with the differing implimentations.
Seriously, if IE would just support fucking selectors ( > and + ), a few more of the pseudo classes (:active), pseudo elements (:before,
Ahhh...
Also, any developers interested in having some fun with getting IE to work in a standards compliant way, take a look at this:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
And if elections had anything to do with legitimacy, I might agree with you. However, if GWB can get re-elected... you know what I'm saying? That and even if the new guy wins, what does it matter? After getting a pocket stuffed with bills and his own ticket to living forever he's gonna vote exactly the way he's told.
He's also not talking into account the fact that no matter how cheap the actual process becomes people with money control the people in Government. Just have the FDA tack on some arbitrary "long life excise" tax because the treatment isn't "necessary" and that can keep the price up... well... how long are these rich bastards going to live?
"It's a victory for reason over religious mumbo-jumbo."
Heh. So a sticker that states: "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." should be banned and somehow this is "a victory for reason?"
I don't know who scares me more, Fundementalist Christian freaks or the people in your camp who keep telling yourselves you're "intellectual" and "scientific."
Evolution is a theory and like EVERYTHING, from theology to politics to science it should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
The Christians cheer when their crap is stuffed down everyone's throats and you cheer when people are silenced. The world's problems are obvious.
Actually, that's me.
So I'm reading the article and I run across this in one of the questions:
"They have resurrected the x86 version and added several interesting features--containers, DTrace, and ZFS, for example..."
Followed by this:
"If you thought Linux had issues with driver availability for some things, let's see you try Solaris/x86. (Editors' note: Drivers enable an operating system to communicate with specific hardware such as a video card or network adapter.)"
Now... can someone explain to me why the editors figure that people who have some idea of what x86, DTrace, containers and ZFS are wouldn't know what a driver is?