Once IE7's market share starts approaching that of Mozilla or IE6, I'll start working towards supporting it. Until then, end-users who choose to IE7 can suffer the consequences, if it's not compatible with code that works in both IE6 and Firefox.
Movies for Children and Adults
on
Lucas's New HQ
·
· Score: 1
Movies dont have to be divided into "for children" and "for adult" categories. Countless movies have been made that have appealed to both.
The most successful example of which is the Lord of the Rings series. A good movie appeals to its target market; an epic movie appeals to a broad swath of people that defies a single demographic.
First of all, calling people idiots isn't going to help prove your point. If anything, it's going to make people discount it. Be mature or be quiet.
That aside, I don't think developers really care what IE implements in IE7. Adoption of Windows desktop operating systems beyond Windows 2000 (XP, 2003) is nowhere near what Microsoft has been hoping for. And they've already said that IE7 will not be made available to users of Windows 2000 and below. So long as they enforce that policy, Firefox's worldwide market share will only grow.
Bear with me... I'm about to get to the point. Firefox already does an outstanding job of supporting the W3C's CSS2.1 specification. Firefox has proven that you don't need to release a new version of a browser to upgrade the core functionality (i.e. XHTML, CSS support). Which means that Firefox has a huge advantage is being able to offer baseline CSS3 support for whatever W3C recommendations are, and then changing / updating them once the final specifications are release.
It's great that Microsoft claims to be all about developers, but they're losing traction in a serious way on the client-side. I should know, because I'm a Microsoft web developer, and I'm back to developing for client-side W3C standards, after a 5-year hiatus that began with the demise of Netscape Navigator. Firefox is single-handedly responsible for my new interest in CSS and XHTML, and I only use IE6 now when I need to check compatibility with some of my company's webapps (they support both IE / FF).
Does it leave the door as wide open for exploitation as ActiveX does, though? This is a genuine question -- I'm by no means an authority on this kind of stuff, and I'm definitely not savvy enough to know how Firefox works behind the hood.
I was using XmlHttpRequest as far back as June 2000. I've been using MSDN since as far back as I can remember. And as much fun as using IE-only technology is, I'd prefer to develop using cross-platform technologies.
But thanks anyway for trying to put words into my mouth.
Firefox, on the other hand, stands to benefit immensely from all this. It offers a free, lightweight, standalone browser whose programming environment makes it easy for developers to extend its functionality without coopting its security (so far). It does this without any hooks into the operating system, and offers a variety of ways to combat malware, popups and generally obnoxious behavior (Flash movies, rampant advertising, etc).
Microsoft might claim that they won't be releasing any further security patches or functional upgrades to Windows 2000 or IE6. But as of September 2004, ~49% of Windows users still use Windows 2000 or lower (98, 95, NT, etc). Trying to scare users into upgrading their OS, so they can take advantage of a marginally improved, questionably more secure Windows, doesn't seem to be working anymore. And I'm by no means a Linux zealot -- I'm an ASP/SQL programmer, have been using Windows since v3.1, and am a huge fan of Microsoft's development tools / languages.
Besides landing my most recent job, discovering Firefox was the best tech-related thing that's come along in recent memory. It's inspired me to start learning more about client-side development again, after seeing what's possible with AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And XML), standards-compliant CSS and XHTML. Once Dean Edwards' CSS-based IE7 stylesheet matures a bit more, developers will be able to instantly upgrade the set of standards-compliant available to IE 5/6 users. At that point, who will need IE 7? The days of developing wonderful new HTML and CSS tags that are only supported by one browser are in decline...... Firefox's market share has risen to just under 10% in the past year, while Microsoft's market share has dropped to under 90% for the first time since Netscape was still relevant. IE7 won't become ubiquitous for a long, long time, especially if Microsoft doesn't plan on making it available to users of its older operating systems. Why would developers of any web applications besides IE-only Intranets/Extranets create products that utilized features only available to a very small set of the installed user base?
So whatever, Microsoft. Dig your own grave, if you insist upon doing so. I'll continue to use your server-side tools, provided something better and easier-to-use doesn't come along, but at this point, you've lost me as a client-side developer of IE. Not that you should care, of course..... but if you can lose a devoted developer like me, I have to wonder how many others you've push away. It appears it's not all about "Developers, Developers, Developers!", as Steve Ballmer & Co. would have us believe.
The most important problem is not thickness, it's the cable ITSELF I think... I'd rather see some important research on WIFI than this kind of invention...
On a similar note: why are we still talking about improving the fuel efficiency of modern fuel sources: solar power, fossil fuels, natural gas? I'd rather see some important research on cold fusion than this kind of improvement....
the Boy Scouts Association of America was unlikely to have armed marshalls...
Well, _somebody_ has been making sure homosexuals aren't allowed into the Boy Scounts....
Re:As an ASP/SQL developer, how can I QA better?
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
There's no good way to test your app cheaply.
Yeah, that's the answer I've heard pretty much wherever I go. It's not that I don't see the value in spending the money -- it's just that I'm not the one that would be paying for it. Thought it was worth a try, though....
Oh, and my advice is to find a job closer to home. That commute will literally kill you. No, really, I mean it, you'll die.
Yeah, I know, I'm working on it. I require a gradually increasing amount of sleep to feel rested for the day ahead -- at first it was 5.5 hours, and 2 years later I now require 6.5 - 7.0 hours just to make it through the next day. Sucks.
What I'd like is the ability to assign a single core to processing background apps. I run various anti-virus, anti-popup and anti-spyware applications that suck up a lot of the juice that my ancient 600mhz would otherwise make available to the rest of my system; as such, it's painful to even switch quickly between applications. Offloading those responsibilities to a dedicated core, and having the other core to use for immediate use, would be awesome.
Harry and Sally? Jack and Jill? Donny and Marie? Brad and Jennifer? Michael and Lisa-Marie?
As an ASP/SQL developer, how can I QA better?
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
NOTE: This is a genuine question / request for advice. If you suggestions somehow suggest I can fix all of my problems by ramping up on an alternate skill set (Linux, Apache, PHP, Java, MySQL, PostgreSQL), I've already thought about it. However, I currently spend 4hrs a day commuting and I need to pay my bills, so that's not an option right now.
I've been creating web apps for 6+ years using ASP, SQL and HTML. I'm fairly attentive to detail, try to make sure my code is legible / portable / documented in-line, etc. However, I'm currently working on a monstrous behemoth of an application and the need exists for some way to automatically test my app out. Can anybody suggest free or trial-based tools/software packages that can help me unit-test my code before I submit it to end users from second-stage testing?
Yeah, I Googled for more information as soon as I read about this, with the exact same results and conclusion. Plus, check out the images on the Nanosolar Products page -- they have two black JPGs on there, one with gridlines.
I'm not calling BS just yet, but I can't say I'm convinced this is anything more than a hoax right now. If it turns out to be true..... well, it'll be something to think about once I become a homeowner.
Slashdot Mirror
Once IE7's market share starts approaching that of Mozilla or IE6, I'll start working towards supporting it. Until then, end-users who choose to IE7 can suffer the consequences, if it's not compatible with code that works in both IE6 and Firefox.
Movies dont have to be divided into "for children" and "for adult" categories. Countless movies have been made that have appealed to both.
The most successful example of which is the Lord of the Rings series. A good movie appeals to its target market; an epic movie appeals to a broad swath of people that defies a single demographic.
I could have used this when I was playing Starflight.
First of all, calling people idiots isn't going to help prove your point. If anything, it's going to make people discount it. Be mature or be quiet.
That aside, I don't think developers really care what IE implements in IE7. Adoption of Windows desktop operating systems beyond Windows 2000 (XP, 2003) is nowhere near what Microsoft has been hoping for. And they've already said that IE7 will not be made available to users of Windows 2000 and below. So long as they enforce that policy, Firefox's worldwide market share will only grow.
Bear with me... I'm about to get to the point. Firefox already does an outstanding job of supporting the W3C's CSS2.1 specification. Firefox has proven that you don't need to release a new version of a browser to upgrade the core functionality (i.e. XHTML, CSS support). Which means that Firefox has a huge advantage is being able to offer baseline CSS3 support for whatever W3C recommendations are, and then changing / updating them once the final specifications are release.
It's great that Microsoft claims to be all about developers, but they're losing traction in a serious way on the client-side. I should know, because I'm a Microsoft web developer, and I'm back to developing for client-side W3C standards, after a 5-year hiatus that began with the demise of Netscape Navigator. Firefox is single-handedly responsible for my new interest in CSS and XHTML, and I only use IE6 now when I need to check compatibility with some of my company's webapps (they support both IE / FF).
I use Firefox and know many, many people who do, too. I know one guy who uses Safari, and nobody who uses Opera.
Does it leave the door as wide open for exploitation as ActiveX does, though? This is a genuine question -- I'm by no means an authority on this kind of stuff, and I'm definitely not savvy enough to know how Firefox works behind the hood.
I was using XmlHttpRequest as far back as June 2000. I've been using MSDN since as far back as I can remember. And as much fun as using IE-only technology is, I'd prefer to develop using cross-platform technologies.
But thanks anyway for trying to put words into my mouth.
Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?
According to Microsoft, IE is integrated into the operating system itself -- it is no longer a standalone application. Ostensibly they did this to allow greater desktop-to-Internet integration, but given the inherent insecurity of ActiveX, the tendency for the forces of evil to use it maliciously, and the inability of users to lock it down, it's not exactly a hot selling point these days.
Firefox, on the other hand, stands to benefit immensely from all this. It offers a free, lightweight, standalone browser whose programming environment makes it easy for developers to extend its functionality without coopting its security (so far). It does this without any hooks into the operating system, and offers a variety of ways to combat malware, popups and generally obnoxious behavior (Flash movies, rampant advertising, etc).
Microsoft might claim that they won't be releasing any further security patches or functional upgrades to Windows 2000 or IE6. But as of September 2004, ~49% of Windows users still use Windows 2000 or lower (98, 95, NT, etc). Trying to scare users into upgrading their OS, so they can take advantage of a marginally improved, questionably more secure Windows, doesn't seem to be working anymore. And I'm by no means a Linux zealot -- I'm an ASP/SQL programmer, have been using Windows since v3.1, and am a huge fan of Microsoft's development tools / languages.
Besides landing my most recent job, discovering Firefox was the best tech-related thing that's come along in recent memory. It's inspired me to start learning more about client-side development again, after seeing what's possible with AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And XML), standards-compliant CSS and XHTML. Once Dean Edwards' CSS-based IE7 stylesheet matures a bit more, developers will be able to instantly upgrade the set of standards-compliant available to IE 5/6 users. At that point, who will need IE 7? The days of developing wonderful new HTML and CSS tags that are only supported by one browser are in decline...... Firefox's market share has risen to just under 10% in the past year, while Microsoft's market share has dropped to under 90% for the first time since Netscape was still relevant. IE7 won't become ubiquitous for a long, long time, especially if Microsoft doesn't plan on making it available to users of its older operating systems. Why would developers of any web applications besides IE-only Intranets/Extranets create products that utilized features only available to a very small set of the installed user base?
So whatever, Microsoft. Dig your own grave, if you insist upon doing so. I'll continue to use your server-side tools, provided something better and easier-to-use doesn't come along, but at this point, you've lost me as a client-side developer of IE. Not that you should care, of course..... but if you can lose a devoted developer like me, I have to wonder how many others you've push away. It appears it's not all about "Developers, Developers, Developers!", as Steve Ballmer & Co. would have us believe.
Really, just looking at the Microsoft Fanboys referenced in that article.
"Internet Explorer (7?) is all I need."
They're right, of course.... and here it is:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
So this will clear all my tracks automaticly when I, say look at the hardcore of porn?
Yes, but it won't hide your posts on Slashdot from your girlfriend.
But once we get to photorealism, what is going to sustain growth?
We'll worry about crossing that photorealistic bridge once we get to it.
Jaffa, kree tall!
Why not me, Lord? WHY!!?
:)
On a serious note, though -- serves me right for not RTFA'ing.
The MPAA has banned DVDs in France.
Since I don't want this nice gentleman to die horrible water-y death, I will abstain from downloading Opera.
It's about plugging the analog hole
I love it when you post dirty on Slashdot.
The most important problem is not thickness, it's the cable ITSELF I think... I'd rather see some important research on WIFI than this kind of invention...
On a similar note: why are we still talking about improving the fuel efficiency of modern fuel sources: solar power, fossil fuels, natural gas? I'd rather see some important research on cold fusion than this kind of improvement....
the Boy Scouts Association of America was unlikely to have armed marshalls...
Well, _somebody_ has been making sure homosexuals aren't allowed into the Boy Scounts....
There's no good way to test your app cheaply.
Yeah, that's the answer I've heard pretty much wherever I go. It's not that I don't see the value in spending the money -- it's just that I'm not the one that would be paying for it. Thought it was worth a try, though....
Oh, and my advice is to find a job closer to home. That commute will literally kill you. No, really, I mean it, you'll die.
Yeah, I know, I'm working on it. I require a gradually increasing amount of sleep to feel rested for the day ahead -- at first it was 5.5 hours, and 2 years later I now require 6.5 - 7.0 hours just to make it through the next day. Sucks.
It's like 4 degrees outside!! How about some hot chocolate Baskin Robbins?!
Fortunately, Baskin Robbins also give you the option to consume ice cream INSIDE their stores.
What I'd like is the ability to assign a single core to processing background apps. I run various anti-virus, anti-popup and anti-spyware applications that suck up a lot of the juice that my ancient 600mhz would otherwise make available to the rest of my system; as such, it's painful to even switch quickly between applications. Offloading those responsibilities to a dedicated core, and having the other core to use for immediate use, would be awesome.
Harry and Sally?
Jack and Jill?
Donny and Marie?
Brad and Jennifer?
Michael and Lisa-Marie?
NOTE: This is a genuine question / request for advice. If you suggestions somehow suggest I can fix all of my problems by ramping up on an alternate skill set (Linux, Apache, PHP, Java, MySQL, PostgreSQL), I've already thought about it. However, I currently spend 4hrs a day commuting and I need to pay my bills, so that's not an option right now.
I've been creating web apps for 6+ years using ASP, SQL and HTML. I'm fairly attentive to detail, try to make sure my code is legible / portable / documented in-line, etc. However, I'm currently working on a monstrous behemoth of an application and the need exists for some way to automatically test my app out. Can anybody suggest free or trial-based tools/software packages that can help me unit-test my code before I submit it to end users from second-stage testing?
Yeah, I Googled for more information as soon as I read about this, with the exact same results and conclusion. Plus, check out the images on the Nanosolar Products page -- they have two black JPGs on there, one with gridlines.
I'm not calling BS just yet, but I can't say I'm convinced this is anything more than a hoax right now. If it turns out to be true..... well, it'll be something to think about once I become a homeowner.
Actually, it's quite possible -- all you need to do is insulate the room with Aerogel, and you'll be good to go.