html editors
David True
has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
Thanks,
David
Mike_B...@webbbs.dynip.com
David True <DTT...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
> has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
> interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
> a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
> over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
I don't think it has anything to do with FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver 2 and
Netscape has a tendency to screw things up unless I convert everything to
tables.
---
WebBBS Pro v1.12 : Genesis ( http://webbbs.dynip.com/ )
Ryan Saghir
> I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
> has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
> interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
> a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
> over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
>
> newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
For about $300 you can get Adobe GoLive which has gotten some good
compliment from a few of my friends. HotMetal Pro 6.0 ($99) is another
hot item. As for newbie-friendlyness, I've heard that Splash! 1.2 ($49)
is supposed to be the best.
Hope this helps!
___________________________________________________________________
Ryan Saghir
DeMorgan Industries Corporation - The Makers of WebSpice
ry...@demorgan.com
http://www.webspice.com - Ready-Made Web Graphics For Anyone Building
Web Pages.
Fredrich P. Maney
[deletia]
: I don't think it has anything to do with FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver 2 and
: Netscape has a tendency to screw things up unless I convert everything to
: tables.
It's not Netscape. It's because neither FrontPage nor Dreamweaver have
any concept of how to generate valid HTML.
They both do a lot idiotic things, FrontPage tends to add a lot
more tags than are necessary (and some of them aren't even correct),
while Dreamweaver has this very nasty habit of sticking blank
images all over the place.
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney |
| ma...@stdio.com ma...@maney.org www.maney.org ICQ# 5632845 |
| Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ |
| Outlaw Junk Email! Support HR1748. |
| "Sometimes, fear has a good and useful purpose." |
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>: I don't think it has anything to do with FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver 2 and
>: Netscape has a tendency to screw things up unless I convert everything to
>: tables.
>
>It's not Netscape. It's because neither FrontPage nor Dreamweaver have
>any concept of how to generate valid HTML.
Wrong & Right. Granted neither generate 100% valid HTML. But
that doesn't change how screwed up Netscape has become. I was a
complete Netscape follower through version 3.04, but since then I'll
have to say they have gone to the dogs.
>They both do a lot idiotic things, FrontPage tends to add a lot
>more tags than are necessary (and some of them aren't even correct),
>while Dreamweaver has this very nasty habit of sticking blank
>images all over the place.
While the clear pixel gif thing is not the greatest way to
write HTML, what does that have to do with NN breaking or Choking?
Gil Harvey
http://www.old-hippy.com
Affordable Web Development for Businesses
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 17 Dec 1999 21:10:46 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
:>: I don't think it has anything to do with FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver 2 and
:>: Netscape has a tendency to screw things up unless I convert everything to
:>: tables.
:>
:>It's not Netscape. It's because neither FrontPage nor Dreamweaver have
:>any concept of how to generate valid HTML.
: Wrong & Right. Granted neither generate 100% valid HTML. But
: that doesn't change how screwed up Netscape has become. I was a
: complete Netscape follower through version 3.04, but since then I'll
: have to say they have gone to the dogs.
It is completely right with regards to the complaints made by both of
the people who posted this (the original poster and the guy I responded
to). I admit that Netscape does a lot of really bad things, largely
due to the lack of quality control from trying to keep up with the
illict code factory run by the monopolistic regime. However, none of
the problems mentioned by either of those people had anything to
do with Netscape's bugginess, and everything to do with the crappy
mark-up and style sheets that they were trying to get Netscape to
display.
:>They both do a lot idiotic things, FrontPage tends to add a lot
:>more tags than are necessary (and some of them aren't even correct),
:>while Dreamweaver has this very nasty habit of sticking blank
:>images all over the place.
: While the clear pixel gif thing is not the greatest way to
: write HTML, what does that have to do with NN breaking or Choking?
Not a thing, I was pointing out some of the flaws in using Dreamweaver.
Hence the reason it was in a paragraph that starts "The both do a lot
of idiotic things...".
ML
> I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
> has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
> interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
> a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
> over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
>
> Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
> newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
Try Arachnophilia. It's free.
Mike
--
Michael Latham
mko...@etsc.net
http://fiddlingaround.com
David Wier
download is free; it doesn't expire and is quite comprehensive
--
David Wier
http://www.augustwind.com/express.htm
Home of the Original and Best HTML Express
David True <DTT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:385A824E...@yahoo.com...
Big Bill
wrote:
>I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
>has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
>interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
>a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
>over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
>
>Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
>newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
>
you can use html Tidy to clean up the existing code. a quick search
will find it.
BB
Big Bill
>David True wrote:
>
>> I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
>> has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
>> interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
>> a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
>> over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
>> newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>
>Try Arachnophilia. It's free.
>Mike
>
From www. TUCOWS.com
BB
J Kirby Inwood
Try Arachnophilia it is free and excellent
Mike_B...@webbbs.dynip.com hypothesizes:
>> In Article <385A824E...@yahoo.com>
>> David True <DTT...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > I've been talked into building a web page for a local non-profit. It
>> > has certainly been more than I anticipated, but it's also very
>> > interesting. I've been using Front Page. After checking the html with
>> > a validator, I realize that while the themes look good, the html is all
>> > over the place and now my page is giving netscape browsers errors.
>>
>> I don't think it has anything to do with FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver 2 and
>> Netscape has a tendency to screw things up unless I convert everything to
>> tables.
>>
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>It is completely right with regards to the complaints made by both of
>the people who posted this (the original poster and the guy I responded
>to). I admit that Netscape does a lot of really bad things, largely
>due to the lack of quality control from trying to keep up with the
>illict code factory run by the monopolistic regime.
Oh, another "MS is Evil" rant. Nice "spin", blaming MS for
Netscapes faults - are you a politician?
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 17 Dec 1999 22:47:32 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
:>It is completely right with regards to the complaints made by both of
:>the people who posted this (the original poster and the guy I responded
:>to). I admit that Netscape does a lot of really bad things, largely
:>due to the lack of quality control from trying to keep up with the
:>illict code factory run by the monopolistic regime.
: Oh, another "MS is Evil" rant. Nice "spin", blaming MS for
: Netscapes faults - are you a politician?
Nope. And I have no intentions of being one either. It is the truth though.
Netscape was a far superior browser until Microsoft started giving IE away
for free (by using their illegal monopoly to absorb the development cost
of IE in the profits of their Windows sales). After that happened, Netscape
was pretty much forced to also give their browser away. However, since they
do not have the financial resources in their other products to continually
support their browser development as Microsoft has done, Netscape's QA
has been slacking due to their need to continuously pump out a new version
ASAP after MS dumps out a new version of IE.
There are many MS products that I use and like. My problem with MS was
summed up completely in the Findings of Fact. MS's predatory and illegal
use of their monopoly has stifled competition and resulted in far inferior
products than would have resulted in true competition.
Arjun Ray
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
| Netscape was a far superior browser
Superior to what?
| until Microsoft started giving IE away for free
IINM, IE was always free. The "freeness" per se didn't amount to
much, if anything at all.
| After that happened, Netscape was pretty much forced to also give
| their browser away.
Only because IE successfully out-Netscaped Netscape: beat it at its
own game of Tag Soup. At that point, "free" meant *cheaper* (for the
*same* thing - Tag Soup) and the obvious became inevitable...;)
| MS's predatory and illegal use of their monopoly has stifled
| competition and resulted in far inferior products than would have
| resulted in true competition.
Netscape was never a bargain anyway.
:ar
--
"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the
answer." - Erik Naggum
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>Gil Harvey <g...@Old-Hippy.com> wrote:
>: Oh, another "MS is Evil" rant. Nice "spin", blaming MS for
>: Netscapes faults - are you a politician?
>
>Nope. And I have no intentions of being one either. It is the truth though.
>Netscape was a far superior browser until Microsoft started giving IE away
>for free (by using their illegal monopoly to absorb the development cost
>of IE in the profits of their Windows sales). After that happened, Netscape
>was pretty much forced to also give their browser away. However, since they
>do not have the financial resources in their other products to continually
>support their browser development as Microsoft has done, Netscape's QA
>has been slacking due to their need to continuously pump out a new version
>ASAP after MS dumps out a new version of IE.
When did MS charge for IE?
The only thing Netscape was "forced" to do was stop charging
an inflated price for the product.
You don't mean to say they (NN) had to keep up with the
compitetion? Gee, what a novel concept.
>There are many MS products that I use and like. My problem with MS was
>summed up completely in the Findings of Fact. MS's predatory and illegal
>use of their monopoly has stifled competition and resulted in far inferior
>products than would have resulted in true competition.
Hmm, "Polly want a cracker?" That was a parrot's of the
"popular" stand, right?
Arjun Ray
| : In <83gmfi$eke$2...@newsread.stdio.com>, "Fredrich P. Maney"
| : <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
| : | Netscape was a far superior browser
|
| : Superior to what?
|
| OmniWeb, Mosaic.
That's not saying much, really. From a technology perspective, Mosaic
was a huge leap backwards for the Web (see the recent thread "Tag
Soup" on the www-html mailing list at lists.w3.org), and Netscape was
just a deliberate bug-for-bug compatible better clone. Its success
was from not superiority but the "talkworthiness effect", a relentless
boosterism set in motion with Mosaic. (This also set the "mood" for a
number of memes and totemic myths to obscure the technological facts.
For instance, that Netscape "invented" tables in their 1.1 release:
well, not only did they get the HTML+ spec wrong, but a fully correct
implementation was available in Viola before Netscape was even a
company! Back then, Viola had collapsible lists, something for which
today, nearly six years later, you're supposed to code a whole bunch
of Javascript and whatnot and call it "advanced technology" or "vendor
driven progress" or somesuch. Bah.)
| : | MS's predatory and illegal use of their monopoly has stifled
| : | competition and resulted in far inferior products than would have
| : | resulted in true competition.
|
| : Netscape was never a bargain anyway.
|
| That one I'll disagree with.
Tag Soup Is Alive And Well?
:ar
Fredrich P. Maney
: In <83gmfi$eke$2...@newsread.stdio.com>, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
: | Netscape was a far superior browser
: Superior to what?
OmniWeb, Mosaic.
: | until Microsoft started giving IE away for free
: IINM, IE was always free. The "freeness" per se didn't amount to
: much, if anything at all.
: | After that happened, Netscape was pretty much forced to also give
: | their browser away.
: Only because IE successfully out-Netscaped Netscape: beat it at its
: own game of Tag Soup. At that point, "free" meant *cheaper* (for the
: *same* thing - Tag Soup) and the obvious became inevitable...;)
No argument there about the Tag Soup.
: | MS's predatory and illegal use of their monopoly has stifled
: | competition and resulted in far inferior products than would have
: | resulted in true competition.
: Netscape was never a bargain anyway.
That one I'll disagree with.
: :ar
: --
: "Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the
: answer." - Erik Naggum
Exactly.
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 18 Dec 1999 19:14:58 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
[deletia]
: When did MS charge for IE?
Never directly. They did however significantly raise the price of their
OS when they included IE in it as I recall.
: The only thing Netscape was "forced" to do was stop charging
: an inflated price for the product.
: You don't mean to say they (NN) had to keep up with the
: compitetion? Gee, what a novel concept.
No. Netscape was already dealing with competition and was winning (though
it was also doing a lot of things it shouldn't, namely creating the "Tag
Soup" mess mentioned elsewhere). Netscape was charging a very fair market
price for it's browser. Many people were using it because they liked it
and felt it was worth the price. Microsoft didn't like that, so they wrote
their own browser (a far inferior one at the time, and in many ways still)
and absorbed the cost of it's development into the pricing of their OS.
That is illegal abuse of monopolistic power. Plain and simple.
:>There are many MS products that I use and like. My problem with MS was
:>summed up completely in the Findings of Fact. MS's predatory and illegal
:>use of their monopoly has stifled competition and resulted in far inferior
:>products than would have resulted in true competition.
: Hmm, "Polly want a cracker?" That was a parrot's of the
: "popular" stand, right?
Nope. I've bitched about the same thing for several years now. The judge
just happens to have the same opinion I do. I wonder if that has something
to do with understanding of business and law? Nah, we must both just be
following the public sentiment. Jeez! Grow up.
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>Never directly. They did however significantly raise the price of their
>OS when they included IE in it as I recall.
Then you recall incorreectly...
>No. Netscape was already dealing with competition and was winning
Winning? Not hard to do when you're the only guy in the game.
>Netscape was charging a very fair market
>price for it's browser.
Fair in YOUR opinion.
>Many people were using it because they liked it
>and felt it was worth the price.
I used it and paid for it, not because it was worth the price - but
because I had no choice at that time.
>Microsoft didn't like that, so they wrote
>their own browser (a far inferior one at the time, and in many ways still)
No disagreement with IE 2 & 3 being inferior to NN. But you
have to be blind to not admit IE 4+ is far superior to NN4+. Or just
an anti-MS fanatic?
I won't even bother to comment on the "abuse of power" line.
>Nope. I've bitched about the same thing for several years now. The judge
>just happens to have the same opinion I do. I wonder if that has something
>to do with understanding of business and law? Nah, we must both just be
>following the public sentiment. Jeez! Grow up.
Well, you did get part of it right - It has nothing to do with
understanding business. That much is plain.
Thank you - at 52 years old, I don't get told to grow up a lot
:-)
I "grew up" a long time afo when my first business venture
went belly up. but having built three successful ones and sold them
for obscene profits, I am appalled at a Judge telling the American
public "Go to school, study, go out and start a business and if you
get REALLY successful we will punish you for it". As I'm sure you had
no indication of my age, I have none of yours, but I do believe you
are to one that needs to "grow up" here.
Just for the record - there are many things I dislike (or even
hate) about Ms's products and I feel Front Page is thing to happen to
the WWW ever. But I believe "The mind is like a parachute, it only
works when it is open"
Cheers...
Gil Harvey
<robert....@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:39:21 GMT, g...@Old-Hippy.com (Gil Harvey)
>wrote:
>
>> When did MS charge for IE?
>
>Do I recall correctly Gil that when MS's Win95 was first released to
>get their IE browser you bought the Plus CD?
come to think of it, you may be right. But it was still a free
download wasn't it? heck, I stayed with NT3.51 'til just before 98
came out :-)
Fredrich P. Maney
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 19 Dec 1999 00:23:11 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
:>Never directly. They did however significantly raise the price of their
:>OS when they included IE in it as I recall.
: Then you recall incorreectly...
I believe someone else already brought up the fact that you had to
buy the Microsoft Plus! CD in order to get it without downloading.
:>No. Netscape was already dealing with competition and was winning
: Winning? Not hard to do when you're the only guy in the game.
There was plenty of competition: Mosaic, Omniweb, Lynx, as well as
csome others I remember using but don't remember their names.
:>Netscape was charging a very fair market
:>price for it's browser.
: Fair in YOUR opinion.
Fair in the opinion of many people.
:>Many people were using it because they liked it
:>and felt it was worth the price.
: I used it and paid for it, not because it was worth the price - but
: because I had no choice at that time.
See above. You might not have known that you had a choice, but you did
have one.
:>Microsoft didn't like that, so they wrote
:>their own browser (a far inferior one at the time, and in many ways still)
: No disagreement with IE 2 & 3 being inferior to NN. But you
: have to be blind to not admit IE 4+ is far superior to NN4+. Or just
: an anti-MS fanatic?
IE (regardless of the version) isn't superior to NN. It's user interface
has ALWAYS sucked, and that is still true today with IE4+. Behind the
scenes it might be more compliant with HTML and CSS (though as often as
I hear this I have yet to find anypalce where it truly matter other
than in dealing with poorly written JavaScript). That doesn't help it's
horrible interface at all though.
: I won't even bother to comment on the "abuse of power" line.
:>Nope. I've bitched about the same thing for several years now. The judge
:>just happens to have the same opinion I do. I wonder if that has something
:>to do with understanding of business and law? Nah, we must both just be
:>following the public sentiment. Jeez! Grow up.
: Well, you did get part of it right - It has nothing to do with
: understanding business. That much is plain.
Well at a few weeks shy of 28 and as an owner of my own business for over
2 years, I think I have a decent grasp of business. Business in the US
is supposed to be governed by the rules of a free market economy. The
problem there is that this *isn't* a free market economy. That is why
laws have been passed, to protect the consumer, and in this case other
companies, from unscruplous acts from "businessmen" like Mr. Gates.
: Thank you - at 52 years old, I don't get told to grow up a lot
: :-)
: I "grew up" a long time afo when my first business venture
: went belly up. but having built three successful ones and sold them
: for obscene profits, I am appalled at a Judge telling the American
: public "Go to school, study, go out and start a business and if you
: get REALLY successful we will punish you for it". As I'm sure you had
: no indication of my age, I have none of yours, but I do believe you
: are to one that needs to "grow up" here.
No, that is most certainly not what Judge Jackson said in his Findings
of Fact. He said that Microsoft was guilty of criminally breaking several
laws that were enacted and passed by Congress *years* before Microsoft
was ever a company (or for that matter an idea in Bill's head). So, if you
are going to paraphrase the Judge, at least get it right. He told the
American public to "go to school, study, go out and start a business
that obeys the laws, and we (the court and government) will try to
protect you from the Robber Barons and ensure that you have the same
chances as everyone else to make it big".
: Just for the record - there are many things I dislike (or even
: hate) about Ms's products and I feel Front Page is thing to happen to
: the WWW ever. But I believe "The mind is like a parachute, it only
: works when it is open"
You feel that FrontPage is the *what* to happen to the web?
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>:>Never directly. They did however significantly raise the price of their
>:>OS when they included IE in it as I recall.
>
>: Then you recall incorreectly...
>
>I believe someone else already brought up the fact that you had to
>buy the Microsoft Plus! CD in order to get it without downloading.
Right - they did not raise the price of the OS.
>: Winning? Not hard to do when you're the only guy in the game.
>
>There was plenty of competition: Mosaic, Omniweb, Lynx, as well as
>csome others I remember using but don't remember their names.
Come on, Masaic stopped being a player when Netscape was
formed and all the others have never been in the game. It was NN or NN
then.
>Fair in the opinion of many people.
Again - your opinion. Everyone I knew back then complained
about NN charge so much.
>: I used it and paid for it, not because it was worth the price - but
>: because I had no choice at that time.
>
>See above. You might not have known that you had a choice, but you did
>have one.
See above...
>IE (regardless of the version) isn't superior to NN. It's user interface
>has ALWAYS sucked, and that is still true today with IE4+. Behind the
>scenes it might be more compliant with HTML and CSS (though as often as
>I hear this I have yet to find anypalce where it truly matter other
>than in dealing with poorly written JavaScript). That doesn't help it's
>horrible interface at all though.
Again, an opinion. I find IE's interface much better. And
since most people are using Win95 or 98 it is more consistent with
what they are used to.
>: Well, you did get part of it right - It has nothing to do with
>: understanding business. That much is plain.
>
>Well at a few weeks shy of 28 and as an owner of my own business for over
>2 years, I think I have a decent grasp of business. Business in the US
>is supposed to be governed by the rules of a free market economy. The
>problem there is that this *isn't* a free market economy. That is why
>laws have been passed, to protect the consumer, and in this case other
>companies, from unscruplous acts from "businessmen" like Mr. Gates.
Good for you, owning your own business at 26. I was 30 before
I owned my own company. I've since sold three for obscene profits -
even with all the Govt. interference.
Most of the laws you speak of were passed to support the
efforts of politicans and/or their friends and relatives. Had nothing
to do with protecting a "free market", quite the converse actually.
>No, that is most certainly not what Judge Jackson said in his Findings
>of Fact. He said that Microsoft was guilty of criminally breaking several
>laws that were enacted and passed by Congress *years* before Microsoft
>was ever a company (or for that matter an idea in Bill's head). So, if you
>are going to paraphrase the Judge, at least get it right. He told the
>American public to "go to school, study, go out and start a business
>that obeys the laws, and we (the court and government) will try to
>protect you from the Robber Barons and ensure that you have the same
>chances as everyone else to make it big".
I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
the flow of drugs instead of wasting millions of my tax dollars trying
to bust of MS. Then I'd be paying three times as much for less, like I
do now for telephone services, thanks to the Government breaking up Ma
Bell!
Reminds me of a quote(I think it was Sir Winston Churchill?)
To be young and not be a liberial is to have no soul, To be mature
and not be a conservative is to have no brain"
>You feel that FrontPage is the *what* to happen to the web?
Sorry, I meant to say the worst thing thathas happen to this
point.
Colin Mckellar
>>
>> There was plenty of competition: Mosaic, Omniweb, Lynx, as well as
>> csome others I remember using but don't remember their names.
>
> Come on, Masaic stopped being a player when Netscape was
> formed and all the others have never been in the game. It was NN or NN
> then.
I would argue that Netscape was The biggest because it was the best. The
reason why Mosaic stopped being popular was because Netscape was so much
better. There were other browsers, but, again they were not better than
Netscape.
I would further argue that the reason why IE is bigger at the moment, is
because it is the best at the moment. Netscape still has some advantages,
but overall I think that IE is better. (for the record, I use neither
browser). I read an interesting comment that might be appropriate here. to
paraphrase: while Microsoft always gave away their browser, but it only
became more popular than Netscape when it was better than Netscape (circa
version 4.0)
but I won't.
>> No, that is most certainly not what Judge Jackson said in his Findings
>> of Fact. He said that Microsoft was guilty of criminally breaking several
>> laws that were enacted and passed by Congress *years* before Microsoft
>> was ever a company (or for that matter an idea in Bill's head). So, if you
>> are going to paraphrase the Judge, at least get it right. He told the
>> American public to "go to school, study, go out and start a business
>> that obeys the laws, and we (the court and government) will try to
>> protect you from the Robber Barons and ensure that you have the same
>> chances as everyone else to make it big".
>
> I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
> most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
> he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
> government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
> businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
> the flow of drugs....
So, you are in favour of stifling the free market economy by restricting the
actions of drug barons ;)
>> You feel that FrontPage is the *what* to happen to the web?
>
> Sorry, I meant to say the worst thing thathas happen to this
> point.
Amen
Gil Harvey
<mcke...@central.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>I would argue that Netscape was The biggest because it was the best. The
>reason why Mosaic stopped being popular was because Netscape was so much
>better. There were other browsers, but, again they were not better than
>Netscape.
>I would further argue that the reason why IE is bigger at the moment, is
>because it is the best at the moment. Netscape still has some advantages,
>but overall I think that IE is better. (for the record, I use neither
>browser). I read an interesting comment that might be appropriate here. to
>paraphrase: while Microsoft always gave away their browser, but it only
>became more popular than Netscape when it was better than Netscape (circa
>version 4.0)
>
>but I won't.
Weel put.
>> I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
>> most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
>> he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
>> government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
>> businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
>> the flow of drugs....
>
>So, you are in favour of stifling the free market economy by restricting the
>actions of drug barons ;)
LOL - I'm not in favor of "stifling" anything. More in favor
of the court system being more efficent in it's use of time and
resources.
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 19 Dec 1999 19:03:49 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
[deletia]
:>: Winning? Not hard to do when you're the only guy in the game.
:>
:>There was plenty of competition: Mosaic, Omniweb, Lynx, as well as
:>csome others I remember using but don't remember their names.
: Come on, Masaic stopped being a player when Netscape was
: formed and all the others have never been in the game. It was NN or NN
: then.
Just because NN was the best browser available, and the de facto
standard, does not mean that you had no choice in browsers.
:>Fair in the opinion of many people.
: Again - your opinion. Everyone I knew back then complained
: about NN charge so much.
Ok, then what is your opinion about the pricing policies of Microsoft
with regards to their OS and other software?
:>: I used it and paid for it, not because it was worth the price - but
:>: because I had no choice at that time.
:>
:>See above. You might not have known that you had a choice, but you did
:>have one.
: See above...
As I said, you had a choice. You either were unaware that you had a
choice or you consciously *chose* not to exercise it.
:>IE (regardless of the version) isn't superior to NN. It's user interface
:>has ALWAYS sucked, and that is still true today with IE4+. Behind the
:>scenes it might be more compliant with HTML and CSS (though as often as
:>I hear this I have yet to find anypalce where it truly matter other
:>than in dealing with poorly written JavaScript). That doesn't help it's
:>horrible interface at all though.
: Again, an opinion. I find IE's interface much better. And
: since most people are using Win95 or 98 it is more consistent with
: what they are used to.
From a usability standpoint as well. Every other Microsoft Windows
based program that I can think of has it preferences (for things
other than actual viewing) set under the "edit - prefences" drop
down *besides* IE. It's interface is not consistent with the rest
of the Windows based applications and is not intuitive.
:>: Well, you did get part of it right - It has nothing to do with
:>: understanding business. That much is plain.
:>
:>Well at a few weeks shy of 28 and as an owner of my own business for over
:>2 years, I think I have a decent grasp of business. Business in the US
:>is supposed to be governed by the rules of a free market economy. The
:>problem there is that this *isn't* a free market economy. That is why
:>laws have been passed, to protect the consumer, and in this case other
:>companies, from unscruplous acts from "businessmen" like Mr. Gates.
: Good for you, owning your own business at 26. I was 30 before
: I owned my own company. I've since sold three for obscene profits -
: even with all the Govt. interference.
: Most of the laws you speak of were passed to support the
: efforts of politicans and/or their friends and relatives. Had nothing
: to do with protecting a "free market", quite the converse actually.
No disagreement there. I simply stated that they are in effect and
by definition exclude the US economy from being a "free market". That
being the case, and since it is fairly commonly agreed in the Economics
courses I've taken/books I've read/etc., that you can not have a viabaly
working "semi-free market economy" (as it will always move to either
extreme of control or true free market), then the ules and ideals of
a free market economy do not, and will not until we truly become one,
apply to this situation.
:>No, that is most certainly not what Judge Jackson said in his Findings
:>of Fact. He said that Microsoft was guilty of criminally breaking several
:>laws that were enacted and passed by Congress *years* before Microsoft
:>was ever a company (or for that matter an idea in Bill's head). So, if you
:>are going to paraphrase the Judge, at least get it right. He told the
:>American public to "go to school, study, go out and start a business
:>that obeys the laws, and we (the court and government) will try to
:>protect you from the Robber Barons and ensure that you have the same
:>chances as everyone else to make it big".
: I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
: most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
: he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
: government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
: businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
: the flow of drugs instead of wasting millions of my tax dollars trying
: to bust of MS. Then I'd be paying three times as much for less, like I
: do now for telephone services, thanks to the Government breaking up Ma
: Bell!
I'm too certain where you are, but having done my own research into the
reactions of business and academia (particularly from the legal side
of things since my Mom is an attorney and one of my Uncles is a Judge),
every single one of the people I have talked to have felt that Microsoft
*had violated the law* and that *some action needed to be taken to
insure that it didn't happen again*. Most, though not all, felt that
breaking Microsoft up into to smaller separate companies was the right
approach.
: Reminds me of a quote(I think it was Sir Winston Churchill?)
: To be young and not be a liberial is to have no soul, To be mature
: and not be a conservative is to have no brain"
Interesting quote, though I must say that I am puzzled over how this
applies to the situation at hand. Unless, that is, you are trying to
place yourself as an old conservative and me as a young liberal; which
by the way, only shows how little you know about me.
:>You feel that FrontPage is the *what* to happen to the web?
: Sorry, I meant to say the worst thing thathas happen to this
: point.
On that point I think we can both agree.
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>Ok, then what is your opinion about the pricing policies of Microsoft
>with regards to their OS and other software?
I feel that WIN98 is overpriced, NT is pretty fair and the
back office suite is a bargain.
>From a usability standpoint as well. Every other Microsoft Windows
>based program that I can think of has it preferences (for things
>other than actual viewing) set under the "edit - prefences" drop
>down *besides* IE. It's interface is not consistent with the rest
>of the Windows based applications and is not intuitive.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree :-)
>: I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
>: most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
>: he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
>: government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
>: businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
>: the flow of drugs instead of wasting millions of my tax dollars trying
>: to bust of MS. Then I'd be paying three times as much for less, like I
>: do now for telephone services, thanks to the Government breaking up Ma
>: Bell!
>
>I'm too certain where you are, but having done my own research into the
>reactions of business and academia (particularly from the legal side
>of things since my Mom is an attorney and one of my Uncles is a Judge),
>every single one of the people I have talked to have felt that Microsoft
>*had violated the law* and that *some action needed to be taken to
>insure that it didn't happen again*. Most, though not all, felt that
>breaking Microsoft up into to smaller separate companies was the right
>approach.
Well, your opinions being skewed by the legal profession
explains some of your views.
If MS is broke up - the OS company will have to double the
retail price of an already overpriced product, the applications
company will be charging 2 - 3 times for the office suites (God, I
hate to think of going back to Word Perfect!). Etc.....
The loser if that happens will be you and I not Bill Gates.
>Interesting quote, though I must say that I am puzzled over how this
>applies to the situation at hand. Unless, that is, you are trying to
>place yourself as an old conservative and me as a young liberal; which
>by the way, only shows how little you know about me.
You are correct, I do not know enough about you to classify
you as a liberial, but within this discussion you have stated a pretty
liberial view, no?
As for me being an old conservative - maybe, but I don't think
any of us are 100% conservative or liberial. I'm reminded of a weekend
this past summer when my wife & I attended a stage production of
Fiddler on the Roof Friday night and an Aerosmith concert Saturday.
Merry Christmas...
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 20 Dec 1999 16:46:50 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
:>Ok, then what is your opinion about the pricing policies of Microsoft
:>with regards to their OS and other software?
: I feel that WIN98 is overpriced, NT is pretty fair and the
: back office suite is a bargain.
I haven't priced NT recently, I will agree with you on Win98, but Office
is no where near a bargain. Really you are paying for Word and Excel
with the rest thrown in for free. And when you look at it that way, it
isn't even close to a bargain. A bargain is StarOffice. It even writes
the same file formats as MS Office and it is a lot cheaper.
:>From a usability standpoint as well. Every other Microsoft Windows
:>based program that I can think of has it preferences (for things
:>other than actual viewing) set under the "edit - prefences" drop
:>down *besides* IE. It's interface is not consistent with the rest
:>of the Windows based applications and is not intuitive.
: I guess this is where we agree to disagree :-)
Probably.
:>: I wasn't paraphrasing, I was stating my opinion (and that a
:>: most every business man and proffesor I've spoke with) of what message
:>: he (Judge Jackson) sent. I don't need protection from the court &
:>: government, I need them to get out of the way and stop restricting
:>: businesses. I need them (the courts) to spend time and effort stopping
:>: the flow of drugs instead of wasting millions of my tax dollars trying
:>: to bust of MS. Then I'd be paying three times as much for less, like I
:>: do now for telephone services, thanks to the Government breaking up Ma
:>: Bell!
:>
:>I'm too certain where you are, but having done my own research into the
:>reactions of business and academia (particularly from the legal side
:>of things since my Mom is an attorney and one of my Uncles is a Judge),
:>every single one of the people I have talked to have felt that Microsoft
:>*had violated the law* and that *some action needed to be taken to
:>insure that it didn't happen again*. Most, though not all, felt that
:>breaking Microsoft up into to smaller separate companies was the right
:>approach.
Er... that should have been "I'm NOT too certain..."
: Well, your opinions being skewed by the legal profession
: explains some of your views.
That might be, but I don't think I would call it "skewed".
: If MS is broke up - the OS company will have to double the
: retail price of an already overpriced product, the applications
: company will be charging 2 - 3 times for the office suites (God, I
: hate to think of going back to Word Perfect!). Etc.....
Why do you say that? Is it going to be any more difficult for the
OS people to write the OS? Or for the applications people to write
the applications? I don't think so. I think there will be a reduction
in cost because all of the APIs will have to be opened and then there
will be competition with other companies writing OS's and Applications
to fit both sides of those APIs as well as people writing middleware
to interface between existing OS's and Applications with Microsoft's
OS's and Applications.
: The loser if that happens will be you and I not Bill Gates.
If what you think will happens does, yes. I don't think you are right
though.
:>Interesting quote, though I must say that I am puzzled over how this
:>applies to the situation at hand. Unless, that is, you are trying to
:>place yourself as an old conservative and me as a young liberal; which
:>by the way, only shows how little you know about me.
: You are correct, I do not know enough about you to classify
: you as a liberial, but within this discussion you have stated a pretty
: liberial view, no?
I don't think so. I think I have expressed a very conservative view point.
Keep in mind I have been coming at this from the legal standpoint the
whole time, not the economic standpoint.
: As for me being an old conservative - maybe, but I don't think
: any of us are 100% conservative or liberial. I'm reminded of a weekend
: this past summer when my wife & I attended a stage production of
: Fiddler on the Roof Friday night and an Aerosmith concert Saturday.
Must has been a great weekend.
: Merry Christmas...
et tu.
Gil Harvey
<ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
>I haven't priced NT recently, I will agree with you on Win98, but Office
>is no where near a bargain. Really you are paying for Word and Excel
>with the rest thrown in for free. And when you look at it that way, it
>isn't even close to a bargain. A bargain is StarOffice. It even writes
>the same file formats as MS Office and it is a lot cheaper.
NT workstation for around $100, considering *9 for 98 a deal.
I agree about office, too bad I need it to be able to write for
clients who use:-) But, I was speaking of the Back Office server
package, SQL7, Exchange, etc for less than $1000
>Er... that should have been "I'm NOT too certain..."
Figured that on out :-)
>That might be, but I don't think I would call it "skewed".
tainted? biased? Whatever...
>Why do you say that? Is it going to be any more difficult for the
>OS people to write the OS? Or for the applications people to write
>the applications? I don't think so. I think there will be a reduction
>in cost because all of the APIs will have to be opened and then there
>will be competition with other companies writing OS's and Applications
>to fit both sides of those APIs as well as people writing middleware
>to interface between existing OS's and Applications with Microsoft's
>OS's and Applications.
The OS company will have to stand on it's own profits, not
bundle it with those from "Office", etc.
Take a look at what happened with the telephone service.
>: The loser if that happens will be you and I not Bill Gates.
>
>If what you think will happens does, yes. I don't think you are right
>though.
Time will answer...
>I don't think so. I think I have expressed a very conservative view point.
>Keep in mind I have been coming at this from the legal standpoint the
>whole time, not the economic standpoint.
Well, I count a few attorneys and a couple of Judges as
friends and all are what I consider libeial. I think it's an
accupational hazard :-) Our legal system is purposely liberial, in
order to ensure not convicting innocent people. (I know it can still
happen, but...), therefore those that work in that system and believe
in it (I hope they do!!) can't help but be a little (or more) to the
right side of things.
>Must has been a great weekend.
It was, but my head still hurt Sunday :-)
Fredrich P. Maney
: On 21 Dec 1999 02:26:29 GMT, "Fredrich P. Maney"
: <ma...@heathers.stdio.com> wrote:
:>I haven't priced NT recently, I will agree with you on Win98, but Office
:>is no where near a bargain. Really you are paying for Word and Excel
:>with the rest thrown in for free. And when you look at it that way, it
:>isn't even close to a bargain. A bargain is StarOffice. It even writes
:>the same file formats as MS Office and it is a lot cheaper.
: NT workstation for around $100, considering *9 for 98 a deal.
: I agree about office, too bad I need it to be able to write for
: clients who use:-) But, I was speaking of the Back Office server
: package, SQL7, Exchange, etc for less than $1000
Well I bought 98 a few months ago and it was $199 you only got the
$99 if you upgraded. That's obscene. As for Back Office, I guess
I am too much of a Unix gearhead then, because $1000 sounds like
way to much to me. I can get MySQL, Sendmail, Apache, Perl, etc.
for free. They work better, are more stable and scalable and
have a *much* better price. :)
:>Er... that should have been "I'm NOT too certain..."
: Figured that on out :-)
:>That might be, but I don't think I would call it "skewed".
: tainted? biased? Whatever...
Influenced maybe. Those others have entirely too many negative connotations.
:>Why do you say that? Is it going to be any more difficult for the
:>OS people to write the OS? Or for the applications people to write
:>the applications? I don't think so. I think there will be a reduction
:>in cost because all of the APIs will have to be opened and then there
:>will be competition with other companies writing OS's and Applications
:>to fit both sides of those APIs as well as people writing middleware
:>to interface between existing OS's and Applications with Microsoft's
:>OS's and Applications.
: The OS company will have to stand on it's own profits, not
: bundle it with those from "Office", etc.
Agreed. How is that going to make them have to charge more? Seems
to me that it will force them to actually have something resembling
QA and will force them to actually announce ship dates realistically
instead of them being able to announce Windows 95 as coming out in
January of 95 but not shipping till over a year later. And more
specifically, since I believe that the only thing Microsoft does
reasonably well is writing applications, how is that going to force
the price of the Microsoft Applications Company to rise? I would
think that with the Applications Company freed of the excess baggage
of the OS that they would be able to at minimum keep their prices
for software the same if not lower them. Besides with the APIs
being open, and the subsequent competition in both the OS and
Application fields, it seems to me that then it would become the
way it is supposed to be "he who has the best product and can get
it to market wins" as opposed to now where it is "he who has the
most money and the best spin doctors wins".
: Take a look at what happened with the telephone service.
Whole different ball of wax. It's closer to the Oil Industry mess
that led to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Telephone service, for a
long time was Ma Bell or nothing because of the government supported
franchises. There was no competition, and couldn't be either because
of the way the franchises were written, so the phone company didn't
have to compete. After the breakup, now the phone companies have to
compete, so they now have a huge section of their budget that never
existed before the breakup, the advertising portion.
:>: The loser if that happens will be you and I not Bill Gates.
:>
:>If what you think will happens does, yes. I don't think you are right
:>though.
: Time will answer...
Very true. Though only if Judge Jackson follows up on his Findings of
Fact with a some sort of Findings of Law (or if the DOJ and Microsoft
come to some sort of agreement) which split the company.
:>I don't think so. I think I have expressed a very conservative view point.
:>Keep in mind I have been coming at this from the legal standpoint the
:>whole time, not the economic standpoint.
: Well, I count a few attorneys and a couple of Judges as
: friends and all are what I consider libeial. I think it's an
: accupational hazard :-) Our legal system is purposely liberial, in
: order to ensure not convicting innocent people. (I know it can still
: happen, but...), therefore those that work in that system and believe
: in it (I hope they do!!) can't help but be a little (or more) to the
: right side of things.
I think you meant the "left side of things". As for the occupational
hazard of being liberal, I don't see it. Most of the most conservative
people I know are either lawyers, judges or bankers. Hell most of
business owners I know are the liberals.
Actually our Judicial System is very much conservative. It is *very*
resistant to change of any type. That is why it takes *years* to
work all the way through it to the Supreme Court (provided they agree
to hear you). The Legislative System on the other hand is a very
Liberal system by default. Change occurs there on a very rapid (I
would tend to say 'vapid') pace. And the Courts historically have
made a point, in general, of overturning most of the imbecilic crap
the Legislature passes that goes against the established norms.
There is a very good reason that History and English are the two
most common majors for people planning on attending Law School.
Namely, it is to ingrain the history into them as well as to teach
them to truly understand the fine points of discourse and shading
of inflection and intent in the written word.
:>Must has been a great weekend.
: It was, but my head still hurt Sunday :-)
hahaha I can imagine.
Jonadab the Unsightly One
> Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
> newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
Programmer's File Editor is free and newbie friendly.
Emacs is less newbie friendly but has much more functionality,
also free.
"Virtual Reality has nothing on Calvin." -- Susie Derkins
Steve Palincsar
>
> David True <DTT...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone recommend another editor? It doesn't need to be free, just
> > newbie-friendly and not too expensive.
>
> Programmer's File Editor is free and newbie friendly.
>
> Emacs is less newbie friendly but has much more functionality,
> also free.
I didn't catch which OS this is for, but if it's for linux by all means
take a look at Bluefish. Or, if the sight of codes is too much to bear,
you might take a look at Amaya, from the W3C.