I say fuck MLMagasine, use Wikipedia for Netscape's history and FlexBeta's article for Firefox history, since they at least have the facts, with a per-version history to boot
webcore they allow to freely download so anybody could download that and work on a better browser. and if the current lgpl violations can be worked out it could make yet another very good alternative to IE so together firefox netscape mozilla safari and other webcore browsers could take IE market share
Right, and Webcore isn't platform specific and does not use MacOSX specific features that ain't replicated anywhere else, which means that it'll be easy to port Safari to W32 machines...
Yep, Phoenix first until 0.6 I think, then Firebird (because of trademark issues with Phoenix Technologies), then Firefox with the release of... was it 0.8?... because a Firebird project already existed (OSS database)
And there was born Firesomething, allowing me to browse the web with my neato Mozilla Spacesloth
Open Source or not is not a factor here, open specifications is, as well as staying compatible with the existing standard instead of breaking it just for the sake of giving Teh Mighty Finger to the competitor (see: Microsoft MSHTML, Microsoft JScript, Microsoft MSDOM, Microsoft JVM)
1- -moz- properties are standards compliant: when creating vendor specific extensions to CSS you're supposed to prefix them that way, you're allowed to extend the language as long as you don't break compatibility and follow this guideline.
2- As for these "new" functions (that've been around for years), extending ECMAScript is allowed by the spec as long as you don't break compatibility, and they can be implemented through JS code, aka people who want to use them will merely have to do:
if(!function_name) { // define function for browsers who don't have it }
Whoa, so much work, and the definitions of these functions have only been pasted like 2 or 3 times in this thread
You always perform server checks for everything that gets passed back to the server, and then there's no reason that you can't facilitate that with a better client experience for users.
Virtual +1 insightful for parent, at last a guy who understands what you're supposed to do when embedding JS in a page
That said, Mozilla is either standards compliant or not. Mozilla should have gotten this into the standard before incorporating it, not the other way around.
The ECMAScript specifications explicitely allow extensions to the standard. These Mozilla extensions are not only implementable by everyone, but they're implementable using fucking standard javascript.
They're merely useful tools that can be replicated (with lower performances) on any browser that complies to the ECMA-262 specifications.
xmlHttpRequest is not part of any standard and has been implemented first in IE5. Has anyone complained? no?
Microsoft doesn't just extend specifications, they slightly modify/break the implementation so that it doesn't stay fully compatible with the original standards.
They did it for Java, they did it for Javascript (JScript), they did it for HTML (MSHTML) and they did it for CSS.
One of the big features MS are pimping for IE 7 is standards compliance
Is it?
Silly me, I thought it was tabs... and an "improved security" whatever that means.
The only standard compliance thingies I saw on the IEBlog were "we fixed 4 CSS bugs" (great, now you only have to fix the tens left, finish your implementations of HTML4 and CSS1 and start implementing XHTML and CSS2.1) and "Hey, we have included full PNG Transparency support"
And more important than everything: you can emulate the same function using standard Javascript. This means that if the function is not avaible natively (aka you're not using a Gecko browser) you'll get a full Javascript version, and if it is you'll get the native.
I don't know how useful they may be, but i'll more than likely check how they behave.
Very big difference was that Voodoo 5 and 6 were build with a chip designed to run only parallelized (which is why cheapest Voodoo 5 with only 1 chip sucked ass, and the Voodoo 4 was a complete joke with it's crappy crippled chip).
Current GeForces are designed as parallelizable, kinda like Opterons or Xeon.
Can you imagine what will happen to the RIAA and friends when the judges collectively decide that fair damages to illegal file sharing are comparable to the $0.99 per song you pay at most websites. When it becomes clear that you save 90% of the RIAA settlement offer by going to court...
You can? Now imagine that they heard of Yahoo! Music and realize that fair damage is in fact $5 for every month of illegal music downloading ($60/year)
"Hey RIAA, here are your 200 bucks for the 3 years I spent filesharing. Hope you like them"
Sorry? If you're good enough, I'll support you by buying your tracks or coming to your concerts (FYI I do both already, and concerts are the real source of income for "small" artists, the ones that don't appear on CrapTV to get their CrapTV Award, since the label fees usually suck up most of what they could get through CD sales).
Because I'll want you to keep rocking
And because I'll want to listed to your music at the best avaible quality (and P2P networks don't share FLAC files, as far as I know).
And finally because a CD box or a DVD package is so much sexier than a folder full of mp3 files.
The thing is that P2P makes major lose control over what the customer is allowed to discover. Through P2P you can discover each and every band on earth, without any distributive of physical issue, instead of having to gargle down the crap you're fed.
That loss of control over the market is what the majors are afraid about.
That and the fact that online distributions means that you have no need at all for them anymore.
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous, unless you think that a ban on file swapping is leading today's teens to hard drugs.
Try replacing the "other substances" by other kinds of thefts, such as armed robbery or information theft, or even more serious crims (arson, murder)...
And it'll fit right in.
Personal use (in france) is basically: no reselling (if you get any money, even as a compensation for the CDs you burned, you'll get it up your ass) and massive distribution (aka if you give a copy to your family or your close friends np, if you start giving copies to random people it's not going to help). Movie number is not an issue. And there is no fixed value, the interpretation of what stays acceptable and what isn't anymore is up to the judge himself.
Basically, as long as you're not selling anything you shouldn't run in any kind of trouble. And the fairer you behave (aka keeping on buying stuff you really like) the more lenient the judges will be (aka the less likely to invoke non-personal use they'll be)
You also often find that with processors: good steppings are often "perfect" (more or less) chips that got crippled to fill low end/mid end demand of the sales market
Maybe people should remember that part of what triggered that comment from Goodger was that Netscape put forward it's supposedly ultimate security, stability or whatever.
MX1000 is a really good mice (and yes, it does track on glass), but it's still far too heavy for an FPS gamer (which i'm not, reason why I freaking love my 1000).
Google was the First Factor
The AJAX buzzword was the second one, because let's face it executives love buzzword, and without a l33t buzzword to go with it a technology just doesn't exist as far as they're concerned (Asynchroneous Javascript + xmlHttpRequest + DOM doesn't quite sound as sexy as AJAX, now does it?), and if an executive doesn't know your technology he won't allow you to use it in a professionnal environment.
Gmail? Everything can be used flawlessly with JS desactivated
Yahoo? sorry, don't have a Yahoo Mail account, the website works flawlessly though
Hotmail? the inbox can be reached, even though trash and other folders can't, you need to copy/paste parts of the JS to actually reach the mails themselves but it can be done
That's one unknown, one useable with some trouble and one fully useable. Your forum, on the other hand, is fully unusable, it's as bad as MSHTML websites with browser check on front page.
On the bookmarking issue, there is a slight difference between bookmarking and hotlinking, bookmarking allows you to find informations of days gone by that you found interresting, and smart people designing smart AJAX webapps use permalinks whenever it's possible, because not being able to bookmark a page/thread/post/information is one of the most annoying and retarded things one can find.
Wanna see one of the most interresting AJAX applications i've seen to date? Adactio Elsewhere, and guess what? it's fully browseable without JS activated, and even without both JS and CSS.
BTW, as a final note, I didn't say anything about "legacy" computers, I talked about legacy browsers, aka Lynx/Links, old IEs and NS (2-4), operas 6 and below,...
Please, do tell me how vanilla HTML + good server side dev "doesn't cut it" for a web application or a website.
The only things that HTML frontend + server handling lack are reactivity and interactivity. They're not fast, and you get loading inbetween two pages.
And security, too, but you don't use webpages if you need security either.
CSS or JS do bring things, but 95% of the time they're not *needed* to achieve the goal, they merely improve the user's experience (which is nice but far from necessary, aka the user may do without when he needs to).
What else? Flash and Java applets? well, the needs of using them fit neither in "web applications" nor in "most websites".
The only thing i'm wondering about is what you mean by "complex interactions", and why you'd need them in a regular website
Slashdot Mirror
I say fuck MLMagasine, use Wikipedia for Netscape's history and FlexBeta's article for Firefox history, since they at least have the facts, with a per-version history to boot
And there was born Firesomething, allowing me to browse the web with my neato Mozilla Spacesloth
Open Source or not is not a factor here, open specifications is, as well as staying compatible with the existing standard instead of breaking it just for the sake of giving Teh Mighty Finger to the competitor (see: Microsoft MSHTML, Microsoft JScript, Microsoft MSDOM, Microsoft JVM)
2- As for these "new" functions (that've been around for years), extending ECMAScript is allowed by the spec as long as you don't break compatibility, and they can be implemented through JS code, aka people who want to use them will merely have to do:Whoa, so much work, and the definitions of these functions have only been pasted like 2 or 3 times in this thread
The major tab memory leak (that's been around for years now) is supposed to be fixed with Gecko 1.8 btw
They're merely useful tools that can be replicated (with lower performances) on any browser that complies to the ECMA-262 specifications.
xmlHttpRequest is not part of any standard and has been implemented first in IE5. Has anyone complained? no?
You guys know that xmlHttpRequest isn't part of any standard now don't you?
Microsoft doesn't just extend specifications, they slightly modify/break the implementation so that it doesn't stay fully compatible with the original standards.
They did it for Java, they did it for Javascript (JScript), they did it for HTML (MSHTML) and they did it for CSS.
Silly me, I thought it was tabs... and an "improved security" whatever that means.
The only standard compliance thingies I saw on the IEBlog were "we fixed 4 CSS bugs" (great, now you only have to fix the tens left, finish your implementations of HTML4 and CSS1 and start implementing XHTML and CSS2.1) and "Hey, we have included full PNG Transparency support"
- They'll be useful for Extensions (XUL) coders
- They'll be useful for Greasemonkey scripts coders
- They may get into the standard (ECMA-262 1.6?)
- And more important than everything: you can emulate the same function using standard Javascript. This means that if the function is not avaible natively (aka you're not using a Gecko browser) you'll get a full Javascript version, and if it is you'll get the native.
I don't know how useful they may be, but i'll more than likely check how they behave.Very big difference was that Voodoo 5 and 6 were build with a chip designed to run only parallelized (which is why cheapest Voodoo 5 with only 1 chip sucked ass, and the Voodoo 4 was a complete joke with it's crappy crippled chip).
Current GeForces are designed as parallelizable, kinda like Opterons or Xeon.
"Hey RIAA, here are your 200 bucks for the 3 years I spent filesharing. Hope you like them"
It's the majors who are losing money with filesharing man, artists don't get paid anyway, how could they lose money?
Sorry? If you're good enough, I'll support you by buying your tracks or coming to your concerts (FYI I do both already, and concerts are the real source of income for "small" artists, the ones that don't appear on CrapTV to get their CrapTV Award, since the label fees usually suck up most of what they could get through CD sales).
Because I'll want you to keep rocking
And because I'll want to listed to your music at the best avaible quality (and P2P networks don't share FLAC files, as far as I know).
And finally because a CD box or a DVD package is so much sexier than a folder full of mp3 files.
The thing is that P2P makes major lose control over what the customer is allowed to discover. Through P2P you can discover each and every band on earth, without any distributive of physical issue, instead of having to gargle down the crap you're fed.
That loss of control over the market is what the majors are afraid about.
That and the fact that online distributions means that you have no need at all for them anymore.
You can also provide additional services such as lyrics, interviews, special bonuses or whatever you feel like adding
And it'll fit right in.
Personal use (in france) is basically: no reselling (if you get any money, even as a compensation for the CDs you burned, you'll get it up your ass) and massive distribution (aka if you give a copy to your family or your close friends np, if you start giving copies to random people it's not going to help). Movie number is not an issue. And there is no fixed value, the interpretation of what stays acceptable and what isn't anymore is up to the judge himself.
Basically, as long as you're not selling anything you shouldn't run in any kind of trouble. And the fairer you behave (aka keeping on buying stuff you really like) the more lenient the judges will be (aka the less likely to invoke non-personal use they'll be)
You also often find that with processors: good steppings are often "perfect" (more or less) chips that got crippled to fill low end/mid end demand of the sales market
Maybe people should remember that part of what triggered that comment from Goodger was that Netscape put forward it's supposedly ultimate security, stability or whatever.
MX1000 is a really good mice (and yes, it does track on glass), but it's still far too heavy for an FPS gamer (which i'm not, reason why I freaking love my 1000).
That and (much more importantly) google using it in live webapps with GMail, Google Maps and Google Suggests.
Everyone was pretty much ready, the web was ready, we needed someone to actually make the jump.
The CoolGuys© at google did it, people now know it works (aka it isn't yet another crappy useless technology) and are therefore willing to use it.
Google was the First Factor
The AJAX buzzword was the second one, because let's face it executives love buzzword, and without a l33t buzzword to go with it a technology just doesn't exist as far as they're concerned (Asynchroneous Javascript + xmlHttpRequest + DOM doesn't quite sound as sexy as AJAX, now does it?), and if an executive doesn't know your technology he won't allow you to use it in a professionnal environment.
Gmail? Everything can be used flawlessly with JS desactivated
...
Yahoo? sorry, don't have a Yahoo Mail account, the website works flawlessly though
Hotmail? the inbox can be reached, even though trash and other folders can't, you need to copy/paste parts of the JS to actually reach the mails themselves but it can be done
That's one unknown, one useable with some trouble and one fully useable. Your forum, on the other hand, is fully unusable, it's as bad as MSHTML websites with browser check on front page.
On the bookmarking issue, there is a slight difference between bookmarking and hotlinking, bookmarking allows you to find informations of days gone by that you found interresting, and smart people designing smart AJAX webapps use permalinks whenever it's possible, because not being able to bookmark a page/thread/post/information is one of the most annoying and retarded things one can find.
Wanna see one of the most interresting AJAX applications i've seen to date? Adactio Elsewhere, and guess what? it's fully browseable without JS activated, and even without both JS and CSS.
BTW, as a final note, I didn't say anything about "legacy" computers, I talked about legacy browsers, aka Lynx/Links, old IEs and NS (2-4), operas 6 and below,
Please, do tell me how vanilla HTML + good server side dev "doesn't cut it" for a web application or a website.
The only things that HTML frontend + server handling lack are reactivity and interactivity. They're not fast, and you get loading inbetween two pages.
And security, too, but you don't use webpages if you need security either.
CSS or JS do bring things, but 95% of the time they're not *needed* to achieve the goal, they merely improve the user's experience (which is nice but far from necessary, aka the user may do without when he needs to).
What else? Flash and Java applets? well, the needs of using them fit neither in "web applications" nor in "most websites".
The only thing i'm wondering about is what you mean by "complex interactions", and why you'd need them in a regular website