Windows didn't actually come with IE until 1996, with OSR1
Ok, I didn't equate provided with bundled, but it was still free in 1995, and included in Microsoft Plus.
OS/2 had Web Explorer in 1994 (and from memory Warp came with Navigator, or had a direct link to download it on the desktop). MacOS had Cyberdog in 1996.
Just for your information, OS/2 didn't include Web Explorer until 1995, and was replaced by Netscape in 1996. But it was "major platform" that I was querying, personally I would have said "alternative platform". But as I don't know how to define a "major platform" you may well be right.
Hell, even if Microsoft were the first to include a web browser, why would that be a bad thing ?
If they had simply provided a browser I don't think it would have been a problem, it was what they did after they provided it, i.e. trying to subvert standards so the web wouldn't work correctly without their browser that upsets people.
...It would harm the people who make a living assembling the car...
Why the hell would people be assembling the car if there was a magic duplicator?
Do you imagine a band records each cd seperately?
...who make a living advertising, promoting and selling the car. They'd have to find other jobs...
Your right, that wouldn't be fair. Obviously even though their jobs are redundant progress should be halted so they can continue to make a living without the hassle of retraining.
Actually, "god did it" is not a simpler explanation. In fact it's not an explanation at all unless you include what god is, how he got there and how he did it.
You may as well say "it just happened", that's even simpler as there no extra entities involved and yet it increases the sum total of human knowledge by exactly the same amount.
Microsoft used a generic name so they don't have much to complain about...
You're right, Microsoft don't have anything to complain about, they did it on purpose.
...leaving Microsoft out of the name was more about Office branding than it was about encouraging people to conflate their standard with something called "Open Document".
I don't think so, their office software is already branded, MOXML would have complimented that branding.
Personally I think the best solution is to always enter an incorrect user name and password first (or even none). If it's accepted it's a phishing site, if not it's genuine.
I suppose they may cotton on to this, though, and send an "incorrect password entered" page back by default. Hmm, perhaps I should enter the wrong information twice...
The non-standard bit is using a meta tag to provide the functionality of an already available DOCTYPE tag, thus diminishing the significance of the DOCTYPE tag and causing more problems in the future.
There is obviously not literally a myriad of possibilities, this is just hyperbole. My favoured methods are a "View as IE7" button on the toolbar or changing the browser identification string so that it can't be confused with other Explorer versions.
But I also don't see a huge problem with breaking current sites. It would be trivial to write a script to insert a meta tag in current pages that require IE6/7 to render correctly and are therefore defective pages, and will disappear in time, rather than inserting a tag in pages that are correct and creating an unnecessary burden for the foreseeable future.
Personally I think the best solution would be to have a button on the toolbar that says IE7. If the page your viewing doesn't render correctly click on the IE7 button - no need for any non-standard tags.
Oh dear, now the red mist appears to have affected your vision and the rising blood pressure your memory, Coward.
I could have assumed you meant mentally and physically, just mentally or just physically as those were the terms used in the post you replied to. It seems, though, you meant mentally and emotionally but not physically.
A rational person would not introduce a third term without mentioning it, yet still expected others to know that was what was intended. But as none of your posts in this exchange resemble rational discourse it's not a surprise. It is however a continuing source of amusement.
Once your breathing returns to normal look up the term transference, it may give you some insight into your behaviour.
Not only are you wrong, you appear to be unable to form a comprehensible reply. Is the foam dripping from your mouth interfering with your keyboard operations?
When you've calmed down please be good enough to post a list of what *is* funny, as you've apparently been appointed the arbiter of all things comedic. If your not too busy using your faulty insight to incorrectly divine other posters motives, as you have mine, that is.
Here you can see that Mono developers are directly in contact with their Microsoft counterparts to ask them questions about what they're doing and what they should do:
But this is the problem, isn't it.
"Oh please Mr Microsoft, tell us how this is meant to work."
And what happens when they decide not to, once Silverlight becomes mainstream and people depend on it?
Microsoft has signed a patent covenant protecting Novell and the code they contribute to Mono from patent claims
This whole thing stinks of a stitch up.
So Novell is protected, but what about others who wish to contribute or use the code?
It's obvious Microsoft is trying, once again, to own the web.
I took a class in linux (easy A..), and the first few weeks of the class was just getting the thing installed (most were installing Fedora, one Ubuntu, and one SuSE... me). And these were mostly computer science majors, they weren't entirely computer illiterate..
Stop talking bollocks. A few weeks to teach computer science majors to install Ubuntu?
I can see you may want to have a window on each monitor, but different directory hierarchies and/or local and remote machines pose no problem for a split view.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I didn't equate provided with bundled, but it was still free in 1995, and included in Microsoft Plus.
Just for your information, OS/2 didn't include Web Explorer until 1995, and was replaced by Netscape in 1996. But it was "major platform" that I was querying, personally I would have said "alternative platform". But as I don't know how to define a "major platform" you may well be right.
If they had simply provided a browser I don't think it would have been a problem, it was what they did after they provided it, i.e. trying to subvert standards so the web wouldn't work correctly without their browser that upsets people.
You lost me there, what other "major platform" provided a free browser in 1995?
Good god man, you need to get a life.
Why the hell would people be assembling the car if there was a magic duplicator?
Do you imagine a band records each cd seperately?
Your right, that wouldn't be fair. Obviously even though their jobs are redundant progress should be halted so they can continue to make a living without the hassle of retraining.
Actually, "god did it" is not a simpler explanation. In fact it's not an explanation at all unless you include what god is, how he got there and how he did it.
You may as well say "it just happened", that's even simpler as there no extra entities involved and yet it increases the sum total of human knowledge by exactly the same amount.
It's easy to do using sudo, I've been doing it for years:-
Add a user, e.g. "netuser", to use when surfing.
Add the following line to /etc/sudoers:
yourusername LOCAL = (netuser) NOPASSWD: ALL
Add the following to your menu: /usr/bin/firefox
sudo -H -u netuser
Add the following to your ~/.xinitrc and/or ~/.xsessions files:
xhost +local:
Add yourself to the netusers group.
Change netusers permissions so that members of the group have read and write access.
Thats it, unless I've forgotten something or there's a typo...
Not really.
Microsoft Office
Open Office
- not confusing.
Office Open
Open Office
- confusing
Why do you think Microsoft left the word Microsoft out of the name?
Personally I think the best solution is to always enter an incorrect user name and password first (or even none). If it's accepted it's a phishing site, if not it's genuine.
I suppose they may cotton on to this, though, and send an "incorrect password entered" page back by default. Hmm, perhaps I should enter the wrong information twice...
The non-standard bit is using a meta tag to provide the functionality of an already available DOCTYPE tag, thus diminishing the significance of the DOCTYPE tag and causing more problems in the future.
There is obviously not literally a myriad of possibilities, this is just hyperbole. My favoured methods are a "View as IE7" button on the toolbar or changing the browser identification string so that it can't be confused with other Explorer versions.
But I also don't see a huge problem with breaking current sites. It would be trivial to write a script to insert a meta tag in current pages that require IE6/7 to render correctly and are therefore defective pages, and will disappear in time, rather than inserting a tag in pages that are correct and creating an unnecessary burden for the foreseeable future.
Personally I think the best solution would be to have a button on the toolbar that says IE7. If the page your viewing doesn't render correctly click on the IE7 button - no need for any non-standard tags.
Unfortunately, definitions of torture differ.
Some may consider it torture, some may not, but if you can get a judge to agree that it is, then it is illegal.
Oh dear, now the red mist appears to have affected your vision and the rising blood pressure your memory, Coward.
I could have assumed you meant mentally and physically, just mentally or just physically as those were the terms used in the post you replied to. It seems, though, you meant mentally and emotionally but not physically.
A rational person would not introduce a third term without mentioning it, yet still expected others to know that was what was intended. But as none of your posts in this exchange resemble rational discourse it's not a surprise. It is however a continuing source of amusement.
Once your breathing returns to normal look up the term transference, it may give you some insight into your behaviour.
I am what, Mr Coward?
Not only are you wrong, you appear to be unable to form a comprehensible reply. Is the foam dripping from your mouth interfering with your keyboard operations?
When you've calmed down please be good enough to post a list of what *is* funny, as you've apparently been appointed the arbiter of all things comedic. If your not too busy using your faulty insight to incorrectly divine other posters motives, as you have mine, that is.
And yet, Coward, I'm neither mentally nor physically fourteen. It seems you are, quite simply, wrong.
Actually, the M$ thing is still funny. And what's more, it's still appropriate.
But this is the problem, isn't it.
"Oh please Mr Microsoft, tell us how this is meant to work."
And what happens when they decide not to, once Silverlight becomes mainstream and people depend on it?
This whole thing stinks of a stitch up.
So Novell is protected, but what about others who wish to contribute or use the code?
It's obvious Microsoft is trying, once again, to own the web.
FYI zed == zee; zed != zero
You, sir, are a shill, a troll or a liar.
I can see you may want to have a window on each monitor, but different directory hierarchies and/or local and remote machines pose no problem for a split view.
Why open 2 copies? Just use a split view.
Ubuntu does have root, but it's configured so you can't log in to root. Not quite the same thing.