Canadians didn't download less! We just got smarter: if we keep saying "yes, I download music from the net for free" all over the place, our government tax us. So now we keep it quiet:)
The parent is talking about a totally different environment: using web apps as....apps, not web "sites". So its totally different. He (most likely) has a lot of control over the user setups, and individual users are not customers: their boss is. If he uses ClickOnce, its probably a windows-only environment to begin with, etc.
So basically what he's saying is that when you're using web apps as a sort of centralized app, not as a public web site, then IE can sometimes be easier to integrate. That obviously makes everyone go "DUH!", but still. IE isn't "useless", even if its uses lately are few. That was most likely the point (though I can't talk for the parent, but I do end up in similar environments a lot).
Office probably has crazy R&D and coding costs(even if you find the quality of Office to be lacking, it doesn't change that, outsourcing aside, the programmers coding it for MS don't work for peanuts...they probably make 2-3 times what I make, and I don't work for peanuts myself!), so recoding the whole damn thing (even if you port the Mac version, I'm sure it uses a lot of Mac-only API), plus support, etc, it most likely would come down to a loss, or a very tiny profit margin: not worth the customers they'd -lose- from people who would move from Windows to *nix when they see Microsoft's alternate products available there.
Yeah, because the fact that a server cannot initiate a request matters soooooooo much in a lot of more advanced architecture, like SOA. Obviously AJAX isn't for everything, but for a lot of things, it does peachy.
Also, your problem with waiting on Google's app without notification would be there in a normal desktop app too: AKA: the issue is simply that the GUI didn't put the proper feedbacks. Nothing in the typical implementations of AJAX prevents the developer from adding such notifications ---> if google forgot it, its google's fault, not the technology's.
Considering this is slashdot, I'm amazed you didn't say something like "the losers will see their app idea realized as Windows sharedware applications"
Indeed. Actualy, considering IBM's track record, which while not perfect, is not quit in line with a patent troll...I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY reason they used this against Amazon, is because Amazon does the same thing to others.
No. Anti-virus would exist. And even with Microsoft's "protection" (I use that term loosely here) of the OS, they still work FINE. Only -certain- anti-virus, like Symantec's and McAfee wouldn't have worked under Vista without the arrangement. And it is those -particular- ones that are leeching from a flaw, which other AVs do not need to work correctly.
No other security software can function? Funny, there are still a ton that function, so if MS is locking them out, how is that possible?
oh wait: Microsoft did things like making the kernel unpatchable by a third party...so anti-virus that patch the kernel don't work, those that don't work fine... And somehow thats MS' fault?
Yes, I make a ton of typos:)
Anyhow, for clarification: I brought Office as an example of the monopoly thing. Office is an entirely different product, and you can say Microsoft is using its monopoly to push it. In opposition, security is a first party's responsability, thus anti-thrust crap shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Second, these anti-virus softwares (those -2- in particular), mess up with the kernel, the file system, and just about every part of the OS, bugging it down, -opening- some security holes, and all around acting like glorified spywares. In opposition, other similar softwares, like AVG, etc, work peachy, and are not "locked out" by Microsoft, since their methods are much cleaner and far less disruptive. Doesn't that say something about the 2 big names?
WHOOOOOOOOSH, the sound of my point going over your head. You totally didn't get it, congrats. They had all the right in the world to go in that market, yes. However, since it was a market based on something that shouldn't even be there in the first place, THEY can't whine either when that market is gone.
Netscape had a product, which filled in a need customers had: a web browser.
Symantect and McCafe are only parasites, leeching from Microsoft's -mistakes-. It was unevitable that Microsoft would one day try to fix those mistakes, and unlike things like Office Suites, it is Microsoft's -responsability- to fix this mistake, and it is a feature that SHOULD be part of an operating system (aka: security, though Microsoft's implementation is debatable).
Not only that, but McCafe's and Symantec's products are viruses of their own, doing unthinkable things to the operating system and screwing over their users: They are malwares.
I, for one, HOPE these 2 companies die soon, or find a new business model.
Yes, I meant what I wrote. There aren't a lot of user apps that have as many components as VS, or do as much. Games (but i tried to stay away from those for my comparison), and dev apps are about it. So VS, Photoshop (that can eat some juice if you do large projects), most enterprise level IDEs, etc. Basicaly, developer and designer tools. Thats about it.
As someone already mentionned, its a matter of what your time is worth to you.
Example: I built my own machine, AND paid 3000$ for the thing. Obviously at the time it was a total monster in that case. #1 I regreted building it myself, because when shit hits the fan, I had to maintain it. However, thats not my point here. #2 The reason I spent so damn fucking much on a computer, is so I wouldn't have to deal with it. This box is like 4 years old (or something, I didn't keep track) and runs very, very respectably just about everything. Aka: I didn't have to upgrade it in 4 years, and its still an upper tier machine (save for the video card, and the only reason the video card has issues is Nvidia's rediculous DX9's implementation in their first batch of cards). And the way things are going (aside the video card), I still won't have to touch it for at least another year, while still running high end apps like Visual Studio and most games.
That buddy, when you have a busy life, is priceless.
If the only need you needed from SQL Server was stored procedures, there was a ton of alternatives a long time ago. And stored procedures are (to some extent) being phased out by other things. That being said, when you set up SQL Server, Oracle, etc, its not for a feature from 10 years+ ago. Its for things like Business Intelligence service integration, data mining, etc.
I am well aware of that. What I was trying to explain however, had jack nothing to do with XHTML itself, but with the way the doctype affects the standard compliance mode of IE, especialy its box model. If even -basic- features of CSS didn't render correctly in IE7, then you used a doctype that put IE in quirkmode. Again, this has nothing to do with actual XHTML support.
Before writting this post, I double checked, and one thing I wasn't aware of was that some HTML 4.0 doctypes do put IE in pseudo-standard compliance mode, and some XHTML doctypes put it in quirkmode, so maybe thats where the confusion stems. If there are -basic- features (like formatting text, etc) that IE7 barfs over when it is -not- in quirk mode, I'd like to know about them.
I originally used the proper doctype, then switched to the transitional, loose HTML 4 work around in order to get it to parse in IE
That would do it. If you don't use at least XHTML transitional for your doctype, then IE uses the old, broken box model. That screws up everything. Not sure what you had issues with though, since uses XHTML 1.0 (sometimes 1.1), go through the validator peachy, and work in IE6 even. So why did you need to use HTML 4 is beyond me.
What doctype were you using? o.O basic formatting is part of CSS1, which IE7 as far as I know supports at 99.99999% or just about. The only "basic" feature that tends to give problems is div overflow, even in IE6, assuming you're using an XHTML doctype. In HTML 4 or quirk mode, its another story, and everything's broken.
IE7 is decent, but I don't think the people using Firefox are necessarly fanboys. When you come down to cold hard facts, Firefox is indeed better. Firefox also has one feature that makes it invaluable: At this point it is relatively mainstream (it doesn't have a huge market share, but it has a significant one anyway), and is cross platform. Thus, if you have a purely internal web application, yet your company has a variety of operating systems (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc), you can make a web app optimized for Firefox, not test it on -anything else-, and just tell people that, for this web application (let say, an ERP system), to use Firefox, and almost everyone can. That, in my opinion, is Firefox's greatest asset, and why, even if IE7 was the best browser ever, Firefox would still have a use. There are other browsers like that (like Opera), but they don't have the same mind share.
Its not like Firefox is 100% compliant either, so the reason your site works in all those browsers, is that (probably by reflex), you only used features that are supported by those. Obviously, IE7 sucks less than 6, but still sucks, so the odds that you hit something it didn't support were higher, and tada, you hit one. There are even a few CSS2 properties that virtualy no browser supports. So if you make a web site, and go by the -standards- and nothing else, you're in for a surprise. But you didn't. You went by the standards supported by most browsers, and of that, a few (ok, a lot), weren't supported by IE7. That is -very- different. You could use features supported by Firefox and not by Opera, or vice versa, and you'd end up in the same boat. Mind you, we're talking 95%+ support as opposed to like, 60% or something, but still.
Its a matter of what your targeted audience is. If you look at a lot of large scale news site (or, well, large scales -sites- in general), they'll often even support garbages like IE for Macs or something.
On my side, I'll probably support Safari before Opera, for one:) But I have had to do web apps that only needed to work in IE6 flat...others only Firefox and nothing else...some just IE6 and Firefox, some had to support most everything, and so on...it really depends on your target. And unfortunately, for some, the target is "everything and everyone".
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, now with this newfound knowledge in mind, I can add on my resume "Intermediate LUA developer"
Canadians didn't download less! We just got smarter: if we keep saying "yes, I download music from the net for free" all over the place, our government tax us. So now we keep it quiet :)
The parent is talking about a totally different environment: using web apps as....apps, not web "sites". So its totally different. He (most likely) has a lot of control over the user setups, and individual users are not customers: their boss is. If he uses ClickOnce, its probably a windows-only environment to begin with, etc.
So basically what he's saying is that when you're using web apps as a sort of centralized app, not as a public web site, then IE can sometimes be easier to integrate. That obviously makes everyone go "DUH!", but still. IE isn't "useless", even if its uses lately are few. That was most likely the point (though I can't talk for the parent, but I do end up in similar environments a lot).
How is this a troll? People get modded insightful 5 for saying the same darn thing about Microsoft everyday.
Office probably has crazy R&D and coding costs(even if you find the quality of Office to be lacking, it doesn't change that, outsourcing aside, the programmers coding it for MS don't work for peanuts...they probably make 2-3 times what I make, and I don't work for peanuts myself!), so recoding the whole damn thing (even if you port the Mac version, I'm sure it uses a lot of Mac-only API), plus support, etc, it most likely would come down to a loss, or a very tiny profit margin: not worth the customers they'd -lose- from people who would move from Windows to *nix when they see Microsoft's alternate products available there.
Yeah, at the very least he should have designed a set of unit tests to catch that mess when we refactor :)
Yeah, because the fact that a server cannot initiate a request matters soooooooo much in a lot of more advanced architecture, like SOA. Obviously AJAX isn't for everything, but for a lot of things, it does peachy.
Also, your problem with waiting on Google's app without notification would be there in a normal desktop app too: AKA: the issue is simply that the GUI didn't put the proper feedbacks. Nothing in the typical implementations of AJAX prevents the developer from adding such notifications ---> if google forgot it, its google's fault, not the technology's.
Considering this is slashdot, I'm amazed you didn't say something like "the losers will see their app idea realized as Windows sharedware applications"
Indeed. Actualy, considering IBM's track record, which while not perfect, is not quit in line with a patent troll...I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY reason they used this against Amazon, is because Amazon does the same thing to others.
No. Anti-virus would exist. And even with Microsoft's "protection" (I use that term loosely here) of the OS, they still work FINE. Only -certain- anti-virus, like Symantec's and McAfee wouldn't have worked under Vista without the arrangement. And it is those -particular- ones that are leeching from a flaw, which other AVs do not need to work correctly.
No other security software can function? Funny, there are still a ton that function, so if MS is locking them out, how is that possible?
oh wait: Microsoft did things like making the kernel unpatchable by a third party...so anti-virus that patch the kernel don't work, those that don't work fine... And somehow thats MS' fault?
Yes, you understood perfectly. Thanks for clarifying my point :)
Yes, I make a ton of typos :)
Anyhow, for clarification: I brought Office as an example of the monopoly thing. Office is an entirely different product, and you can say Microsoft is using its monopoly to push it. In opposition, security is a first party's responsability, thus anti-thrust crap shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Second, these anti-virus softwares (those -2- in particular), mess up with the kernel, the file system, and just about every part of the OS, bugging it down, -opening- some security holes, and all around acting like glorified spywares. In opposition, other similar softwares, like AVG, etc, work peachy, and are not "locked out" by Microsoft, since their methods are much cleaner and far less disruptive. Doesn't that say something about the 2 big names?
WHOOOOOOOOSH, the sound of my point going over your head. You totally didn't get it, congrats. They had all the right in the world to go in that market, yes. However, since it was a market based on something that shouldn't even be there in the first place, THEY can't whine either when that market is gone.
Netscape had a product, which filled in a need customers had: a web browser.
Symantect and McCafe are only parasites, leeching from Microsoft's -mistakes-. It was unevitable that Microsoft would one day try to fix those mistakes, and unlike things like Office Suites, it is Microsoft's -responsability- to fix this mistake, and it is a feature that SHOULD be part of an operating system (aka: security, though Microsoft's implementation is debatable).
Not only that, but McCafe's and Symantec's products are viruses of their own, doing unthinkable things to the operating system and screwing over their users: They are malwares. I, for one, HOPE these 2 companies die soon, or find a new business model.
Yes, I meant what I wrote. There aren't a lot of user apps that have as many components as VS, or do as much. Games (but i tried to stay away from those for my comparison), and dev apps are about it. So VS, Photoshop (that can eat some juice if you do large projects), most enterprise level IDEs, etc. Basicaly, developer and designer tools. Thats about it.
As someone already mentionned, its a matter of what your time is worth to you.
Example: I built my own machine, AND paid 3000$ for the thing. Obviously at the time it was a total monster in that case. #1 I regreted building it myself, because when shit hits the fan, I had to maintain it. However, thats not my point here. #2 The reason I spent so damn fucking much on a computer, is so I wouldn't have to deal with it. This box is like 4 years old (or something, I didn't keep track) and runs very, very respectably just about everything. Aka: I didn't have to upgrade it in 4 years, and its still an upper tier machine (save for the video card, and the only reason the video card has issues is Nvidia's rediculous DX9's implementation in their first batch of cards). And the way things are going (aside the video card), I still won't have to touch it for at least another year, while still running high end apps like Visual Studio and most games.
That buddy, when you have a busy life, is priceless.
If the only need you needed from SQL Server was stored procedures, there was a ton of alternatives a long time ago. And stored procedures are (to some extent) being phased out by other things. That being said, when you set up SQL Server, Oracle, etc, its not for a feature from 10 years+ ago. Its for things like Business Intelligence service integration, data mining, etc.
I am well aware of that. What I was trying to explain however, had jack nothing to do with XHTML itself, but with the way the doctype affects the standard compliance mode of IE, especialy its box model. If even -basic- features of CSS didn't render correctly in IE7, then you used a doctype that put IE in quirkmode. Again, this has nothing to do with actual XHTML support.
Before writting this post, I double checked, and one thing I wasn't aware of was that some HTML 4.0 doctypes do put IE in pseudo-standard compliance mode, and some XHTML doctypes put it in quirkmode, so maybe thats where the confusion stems. If there are -basic- features (like formatting text, etc) that IE7 barfs over when it is -not- in quirk mode, I'd like to know about them.
What doctype were you using? o.O basic formatting is part of CSS1, which IE7 as far as I know supports at 99.99999% or just about. The only "basic" feature that tends to give problems is div overflow, even in IE6, assuming you're using an XHTML doctype. In HTML 4 or quirk mode, its another story, and everything's broken.
IE7 is decent, but I don't think the people using Firefox are necessarly fanboys. When you come down to cold hard facts, Firefox is indeed better. Firefox also has one feature that makes it invaluable: At this point it is relatively mainstream (it doesn't have a huge market share, but it has a significant one anyway), and is cross platform. Thus, if you have a purely internal web application, yet your company has a variety of operating systems (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc), you can make a web app optimized for Firefox, not test it on -anything else-, and just tell people that, for this web application (let say, an ERP system), to use Firefox, and almost everyone can. That, in my opinion, is Firefox's greatest asset, and why, even if IE7 was the best browser ever, Firefox would still have a use. There are other browsers like that (like Opera), but they don't have the same mind share.
Its not like Firefox is 100% compliant either, so the reason your site works in all those browsers, is that (probably by reflex), you only used features that are supported by those. Obviously, IE7 sucks less than 6, but still sucks, so the odds that you hit something it didn't support were higher, and tada, you hit one. There are even a few CSS2 properties that virtualy no browser supports. So if you make a web site, and go by the -standards- and nothing else, you're in for a surprise. But you didn't. You went by the standards supported by most browsers, and of that, a few (ok, a lot), weren't supported by IE7. That is -very- different. You could use features supported by Firefox and not by Opera, or vice versa, and you'd end up in the same boat. Mind you, we're talking 95%+ support as opposed to like, 60% or something, but still.
AOL for one year? Time to liberate those people!
Its a matter of what your targeted audience is. If you look at a lot of large scale news site (or, well, large scales -sites- in general), they'll often even support garbages like IE for Macs or something.
:) But I have had to do web apps that only needed to work in IE6 flat...others only Firefox and nothing else...some just IE6 and Firefox, some had to support most everything, and so on...it really depends on your target. And unfortunately, for some, the target is "everything and everyone".
On my side, I'll probably support Safari before Opera, for one