Moz beats IE - official
The Onion Man
disk, I used to keep a copy of Netscape around even though (in my opinion)
IE4 beat the pants off Netscape 4.
Why?
Well, I liked to do some bleeding edge web work which involved
hand-coding. And I could always rely on Netscape to choke on pages with
"minor" errors on them - missing closing tags, unmatched quotes - that
sort of thing.
Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
much more resilient in every way.
How things have changed.
--
Ian
He knows his onions.
Sugapablo
> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
> now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
> much more resilient in every way.
The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
have troubles with it.
You know, if MS really cared about things like standards though, I'm
sure they could do it brilliantly. I mean they do have the resources
available to them (beyond cash). They just obviously do not care.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal ]
[ suga...@12jabber.com <--jabber IM ]
alt
>> Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
>> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
>> now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
>> much more resilient in every way.
>
> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
> have troubles with it.
>
> You know, if MS really cared about things like standards though, I'm
> sure they could do it brilliantly. I mean they do have the resources
> available to them (beyond cash). They just obviously do not care.
>
It doesn't sell Desktop or Server OS Licenses therefore it's a waste of
time.
--
Donovan Hill
Jesse F. Hughes
>> Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
>> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
>> now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
>> much more resilient in every way.
>
> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
> have troubles with it.
See, now I'm just confused. Not too long ago, I had a debate about
the worth of free software with a proprietary software user. One of
the things I stressed is that open source projects tend to follow
published standards more closely than closed source. I don't know
much, so the example I wanted to use was IE and its failure to adhere
to CSS.
This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
She does develop web pages. I don't, and I don't keep up with this
debate to know how IE sucks. So, I deferred to her opinion on this
claim, although it differed with the common wisdom I hear all the time
(usually in discussions with folks that share my biases regarding free
software).
So, what's the deal here?
> You know, if MS really cared about things like standards though, I'm
> sure they could do it brilliantly. I mean they do have the resources
> available to them (beyond cash). They just obviously do not care.
--
"Sure, [my Usenet presence is] like Shaq playing against you in your
backyard, but that has its perks, as I find ways to have my fun *and*
I can send messages to certain people in the United States Government
without concern that the rest of you understand them." -- James Harris
Peter Köhlmann
> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
>>> Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
>>> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it
>>> is now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla
>>> is much more resilient in every way.
>>
>> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
>> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
>> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
>> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
>> have troubles with it.
>
> See, now I'm just confused. Not too long ago, I had a debate about
> the worth of free software with a proprietary software user. One of
> the things I stressed is that open source projects tend to follow
> published standards more closely than closed source. I don't know
> much, so the example I wanted to use was IE and its failure to adhere
> to CSS.
>
> This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
> the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
>
She is wrong
< snip >
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Eugene
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
>>>> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it
>>>> is now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla
>>>> is much more resilient in every way.
>>>
>>> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
>>> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
>>> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
>>> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
>>> have troubles with it.
>>
>> See, now I'm just confused. Not too long ago, I had a debate about
>> the worth of free software with a proprietary software user. One of
>> the things I stressed is that open source projects tend to follow
>> published standards more closely than closed source. I don't know
>> much, so the example I wanted to use was IE and its failure to adhere
>> to CSS.
>>
>> This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
>> the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
>>
>
> She is wrong
>
> < snip >
Its most likely because she's following Microsoft's 'standard' for CSS. The
developers I work with would do that a lot. Something wouldn't work in
another browser and they would ask me if there is a patch/fix/upgrade for
that browser. They were using Microsoft documentation for standards and
are assumeing the problem is with the browser following the non-Microsoft
standard.
Linux Sucks
Official according to whom?
A society reject like you who uses linux and thinks that it is the best
thing?
Give us all a break, and go get yourself a clue, dumbass.
Bob Hauck
<je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
> the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
Netscape _4_ had trouble with CSS. That's a whole different animal from
Mozilla or the current Netscape releases.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Luca T.
> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
> So, what's the deal here?
Tell her to go back to study.
If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
deserve the job she has now.
IE is buggy.
IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
download manager, etc).
IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
Bye,
Luca
--
Linux registered user #291568 (http://counter.li.org/)
Electronic Frontier Foundation Member (http://www.eff.org/)
Mandrake Club Member (http://www.mandrakeclub.com/)
Freeride
> It doesn't sell Desktop or Server OS Licenses therefore it's a waste of
> time.
True! Why improve and secure something which does not make you any money!
:)
Linux Sucks
"Luca T." <lu...@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
>> So, what's the deal here?
>
>Tell her to go back to study.
>
>If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
>deserve the job she has now.
>
You don't even understand computers, fuckhead.
>IE is buggy.
So is every browser in the market, fuckhead.
>IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
IE IS the standard, fuckhead.
It has more than 96% of the browser market.
>IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>download manager, etc).
All available for free, but you are stupid and lazy fuckhead.
>IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
ROFLMAO.
You sure are a complete ass.
>IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
No it is not.
It has security bugs that allow remote code execution, that are mostly
plugged or plug-able using free software.
Viruses and dialers are usually coming through email or software
installation, fuckhead.
>She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
Like you.
You are a complete fuckhead.
Milo T.
>> Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
>> find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
>> now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
>> much more resilient in every way.
>
> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
> have troubles with it.
Hell, I'm just waiting for everyone to support CSS 3.0. Until then, CSS is
pretty much worthless for most layout tasks (which was the whole point of
it... splitting format from data). May as well just implement everything
using TABLE tags.
Luca T.
> Hell, I'm just waiting for everyone to support CSS 3.0. Until then, CSS is
> pretty much worthless for most layout tasks (which was the whole point of
> it... splitting format from data). May as well just implement everything
> using TABLE tags.
What??? CSS worthless for layout tasks??? Let me show a couple of websites
that do NOT use tables for their layout but ONLY pure CSS:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/
http://mozilla.org/
http://www.opera.com/
How is CSS worthless? Isn't it only a matter of LEARNING it?
alt
> In article <pan.2003.11.27....@despammed.com>
> "Luca T." <lu...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>>
>>> So, what's the deal here?
>>
>>Tell her to go back to study.
>>
>>If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
>>deserve the job she has now.
>>
> You don't even understand computers, fuckhead.
That's a rather specious conclusion.
>
>
>>IE is buggy.
>
> So is every browser in the market, fuckhead.
>
Then IE is _far_ more buggy than anything else on the market.
>
>>IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
>
> IE IS the standard, fuckhead.
> It has more than 96% of the browser market.
IE does not follow the standards though. I recommend Mozilla for all your
browsing needs, even on Win32.
>
>>IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>>download manager, etc).
>
>
> All available for free, but you are stupid and lazy fuckhead.
>
Functionality that should be _included_ in IE, but isn't.
>
>>IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>
> ROFLMAO.
> You sure are a complete ass.
Interesting correlation. I'm not sure how you get from "IE is old" to "you
are a complete ass". Could you please explain it?
>
>>IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
>
> No it is not.
> It has security bugs that allow remote code execution, that are mostly
> plugged or plug-able using free software.
>
So instead of fixing the problem, Mickeysoft requires you to install 3rd
party software to do the job? Interesting.
> Viruses and dialers are usually coming through email or software
> installation, fuckhead.
But IE is part of MS-Windows, so technically it is coming through IE.
>
>>She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>>in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
>
> Like you.
>
> You are a complete fuckhead.
Hmm.. there's that logically incomplete argument again. I fail to see how
you get to this conclusion.
--
Donovan Hill
Steve
I've had the same experience.
It has definately reversed itself
I see loads of articles about web designers complaining about M$ being
slow to update IE
( why should they? they are a monopoly )
Steve
Steve
>
> See, now I'm just confused. Not too long ago, I had a debate about
> the worth of free software with a proprietary software user. One of
> the things I stressed is that open source projects tend to follow
> published standards more closely than closed source. I don't know
> much, so the example I wanted to use was IE and its failure to adhere
> to CSS.
>
> This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
> the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
Ask her what version. Netscape 4 was not standards compliant and was
not based on Mozilla.
Every Netscape since 6.utoh has been Mozilla( standards compliant )
with the name "Netscape" branded onto it.
Most people's opinions about a particular tech tend to be
outdated......especially technology professionals and double for front
end people.
Steve
Daniel Rudy
listened as Linux Sucks contributed this to humanity:
> No it is not.
> It has security bugs that allow remote code execution, that are mostly
> plugged or plug-able using free software.
So you're saying that the features that already exist natively in
Mozilla 1.5 require additional software for IE such as popup, image, and
advanced cookie management?
> Viruses and dialers are usually coming through email or software
> installation, fuckhead.
What about browse-by-install of adware/spyware/malware without the
user's knowledge? What about that recently patched security hole that
would let a webpage download arbitrary software and execute arbitrary
code? I remember reading something about a file called QHOST.EXE being
installed without user knowledge or intervention with no indication
what-so-ever through said IE security hole which would load a bunch of
crap into the hosts file so when someone went to google.com, a porn site
would show up.
We never hear about these problems with Mozilla.
--
Daniel Rudy
Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
Milo T.
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:14:36 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
>
>
>> Hell, I'm just waiting for everyone to support CSS 3.0. Until then, CSS is
>> pretty much worthless for most layout tasks (which was the whole point of
>> it... splitting format from data). May as well just implement everything
>> using TABLE tags.
>
> What??? CSS worthless for layout tasks??? Let me show a couple of websites
> that do NOT use tables for their layout but ONLY pure CSS:
>
> http://texturizer.net/firebird/
> http://mozilla.org/
> http://www.opera.com/
>
> How is CSS worthless? Isn't it only a matter of LEARNING it?
No, it's a matter of it not supporting multi-column or "border" layouts.
Eg:
+---+---+---+ A = top left segment. B = horizontal "fill" section,
| A | B | C | C = top right segment. D = left vertical fill, E = right
| | | | vertical fill, X = body section (which B, G, D and E size to),
+---+---+---+ F = bottom left, H = bottom right.
| D | X | E |
| | | |
+---+---+---+
| F | G | H |
| | | |
+---+---+---+
If you want to lay out things inside a grid arrangement as shown above, CSS
is completely useless. You can try to do it, but you end up coming up with
a completely hacky nested arrangement of DIVs which render differently in
every browser out there.
So no, it's not "just a matter of learning it".
http://texturizer.net/firebird - becomes:
http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/firebird.png
Note the title slab wraps over, onto the body section. Note that the Title
of the main content overlaps the image on the right. Note that the language
selection text overlaps the text column on the left.
Now, this is certainly an edge case. But it's also an example of some of
the flaws of CSS as it stands today.
Similarly, look at the layout errors (note: this is the DEFINED behavior
under CSS 1 & 2 - it's not a bug in Firebird) for the Mozilla page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/mozilla.png
Besides, if it wasn't an issue Luca, then why CSS3?
THIS is what is needed for flexible layout without the need for tables, or
CSS "hacks" which misrender in some circumstances:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-border-20021107/
This also wouldn't hurt:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/
... which reminds me... I need to figure out how to embed fonts in webpages
in a portable way. Apparently that's in CSS2.
Freeride
You surf the web with your browser window at 25% width?
Milo T.
That wasn't the point. Please read what I wrote, don't just look at the
pretty pictures. That's just one symptom of the hackiness of CSS1&2.
Read this. It might help you to understand this...
Freeride
No I read it and the above and understand, just your example is not a
really and example since you had to shrink your browser down to a level
that no one would ever use.
John Bailo
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:28:13 +0100, Luca T. wrote:
>>How is CSS worthless? Isn't it only a matter of LEARNING it?
>
>
> No, it's a matter of it not supporting multi-column or "border" layouts.
As someone who has worked in web design
for 8 years, and who personally met one
of the architects of CSS while on contract
at Microsoft (Programmer Writer for the
ActiveX SDK, 1996), I have to bellow at the
sheer flood of ignorance displayed here.
CSS is about 'style' not layout. Layout is only
part of what it can do. The brilliance of it is
that it brought to design some of the characteristics
of OOP programming --it is a class structure for
elements to inherit style.
Which puts me on another soapbox, for people
who have never and willnever understand Web
mastering. The point is allowing the language
to determine the output -- as in a program.
It is not to beat and harangue a predetermined
'picture' of what you think it should look
like, or how it should behave -- it is the
magic of a language of layout that produces
amazing results when you understand the rules.
Dreamweaver 'designers' will never understand.
Milo T.
My point was that CSS is fragile the way it handles layout now. With
tables, you don't get that overlapping problem. Absolute positioning is a
hack, and floats are also a hack that don't get to the crux of the problem.
The example I gave is a symptom of the problems with CSS as it stands
today. Namely, they break under certain sizing constraints.
Hopefully the article explains a bit more of what I'm getting at.
Milo T.
> Milo T. wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:28:13 +0100, Luca T. wrote:
> \
>>>How is CSS worthless? Isn't it only a matter of LEARNING it?
>>
>>
>> No, it's a matter of it not supporting multi-column or "border" layouts.
>
> As someone who has worked in web design
> for 8 years, and who personally met one
> of the architects of CSS while on contract
> at Microsoft (Programmer Writer for the
> ActiveX SDK, 1996), I have to bellow at the
> sheer flood of ignorance displayed here.
What ignorance? I have a web page. I want it to have a specific layout. My
only choice today is to get rid of the layout (because CSS doesn't support
it), or to use TABLE tags to create it (which causes problems if you want
to use the content in a format-free manner; the content gets tied directly
to the format).
CSS was meant to allow separation of content and format. Today, it does
not.
> CSS is about 'style' not layout. Layout is only
> part of what it can do. The brilliance of it is
> that it brought to design some of the characteristics
> of OOP programming --it is a class structure for
> elements to inherit style.
Yes, that's all well and good. However, it still requires you to rely on
tables for some kinds of layout which even when CSS1 was still being
drafted, people were using tables to do. Perhaps that should have been a
clue?
> Which puts me on another soapbox, for people
> who have never and willnever understand Web
> mastering. The point is allowing the language
> to determine the output -- as in a program.
> It is not to beat and harangue a predetermined
> 'picture' of what you think it should look
> like, or how it should behave -- it is the
> magic of a language of layout that produces
> amazing results when you understand the rules.
Funny... the W3C don't agree with you - that's why CSS3 is on the way. All
I'm saying is I want it to hurry up.
> Dreamweaver 'designers' will never understand.
Bailo, I use a text editor to write most of my HTML stuff.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
>> So, what's the deal here?
>
> Tell her to go back to study.
She is not a computer professional. She does some web development for
our academic department. She is a graduate student in philosophy.
There is no reason to be insulting just because her beliefs conflict
with prevailing opinion.
> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
Maybe she's comparing today's IE to an old Netscape. Someone else
suggested this as well. I hadn't really considered this option and I
might ask.
--
"Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but
[their] objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per
se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest
companies in the history of this country." -- ADTI defends Microsoft
Tom Shelton
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
>> So, what's the deal here?
>
> Tell her to go back to study.
>
> If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
> deserve the job she has now.
<snip>
> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
> download manager, etc).
IE is getting all of that in the next revision. Due for release with XP
SP2. You can already get all of that with free addins if you want it.
> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
IE is being re-written from the ground up for inclusion in Longhorn.
Currently, I agree that Moz is overall a better browser, but I happen to
know that MS is working on getting the standards compliance
(particularly CSS compliance) up to snuff and adding these oh, so
important features of tabbed browsing, etc.
--
Tom Shelton
Jesse F. Hughes
> In article <pan.2003.11.27....@despammed.com>
> "Luca T." <lu...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>>IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
>
> IE IS the standard, fuckhead.
> It has more than 96% of the browser market.
Repeating this stupid claim doesn't make it less stupid.
You are equivocating on the word standard. The standards to which
Luca refers (and the relevant meaning of standards) are those norms
which have been established as authoritative. The only sense in which
IE is the standard is that it is the most commonly used browser.
There is no normative force for doing things like the most commonly
used browser, but one ought to follow standards which are
authoritative and binding.
This is not hard to understand. Standards in the sense of Luca are
not set unilaterally by Microsoft, but by (I think) W3C, the
authoritative body that governs the web specifications. It doesn't
matter if IE has 100% market share. If they do not follow the
conventions explicitly set forth by W3C, then they are violating the
standards.
This is a longwinded answer, so I'll give you the executive version:
You are just plain stupid.
--
"I've been thinking about my problems with getting any kind of
admission that my math arguments showing the core error in mathematics
are correct, so I've gone to marketing books."
-- James S. Harris, on when mathematics isn't enough
Quantum Leaper
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes
> <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
>> This person (who does some web development) told me that Netscape is
>> the one that has troubles with CSS, not IE.
>
> Netscape _4_ had trouble with CSS. That's a whole different animal from
> Mozilla or the current Netscape releases.
You also forgot to add that Netscape 4 did more for IE than anything MS ever
did.. Netscape 4 was the WORST piece of software I ever have seen,
Win3.11 had more uptime than Netscape 4. Browse the web and click on a
link, and EVERYTTHING would vanish. It drove alot of people I know to
use IE4 which was quite abit more stable.
Tom Shelton
then MS did. Man, I was a Netscape man back in the 3 days. IE3 was a
joke next to N3. I even paid the $35 bucks for N3 Gold - still have the
floppys :) But when Communicator was released, I was so deeply
disappointed that I moved to IE.
--
Tom Shelton
Peter Köhlmann
> Somewhere around the time of 11/27/2003 16:50, the world stopped and
> listened as Linux Sucks contributed this to humanity:
>
>> No it is not.
>> It has security bugs that allow remote code execution, that are mostly
>> plugged or plug-able using free software.
>
> So you're saying that the features that already exist natively in
> Mozilla 1.5 require additional software for IE such as popup, image, and
> advanced cookie management?
>
>> Viruses and dialers are usually coming through email or software
>> installation, fuckhead.
>
Nope. These days most come by surfing the net. That OE is the worst software
known to mankind does not detract from that
> What about browse-by-install of adware/spyware/malware without the
> user's knowledge? What about that recently patched security hole that
> would let a webpage download arbitrary software and execute arbitrary
> code?
There is already a new hole discovered, which is *not* patched
> I remember reading something about a file called QHOST.EXE being
> installed without user knowledge or intervention with no indication
> what-so-ever through said IE security hole which would load a bunch of
> crap into the hosts file so when someone went to google.com, a porn site
> would show up.
>
> We never hear about these problems with Mozilla.
It is not written by incomptent twits like IE is
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
Peter Jensen
>> We never hear about these problems with Mozilla.
>
> It is not written by incomptent twits like IE is
I don't think they're actually incompetent, they just don't care. Why
should they? People use the default browser anyway. How many boxes
will an improved browser sell?
--
PeKaJe
Any two philosophers can tell each other all they know in two hours.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
John Bailo
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>
>>>We never hear about these problems with Mozilla.
>>
>>It is not written by incomptent twits like IE is
>
>
> I don't think they're actually incompetent, they just don't care. Why
> should they? People use the default browser anyway. How many boxes
> will an improved browser sell?
>
Actually they are very competent if you understand
the point of IE is to direct people to msn.com by
making all other sites incompatible.
Eventually Yahoo!, Amazon, Google and e-Bay will
cease to be browsable as m$ invents special
'markup languages' and breaks all worldwide
specifications and standards ( on purpose ).
Scarletdown
news:3fc7120b$0$29380$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk:
> I don't think they're actually incompetent, they just don't
> care. Why should they? People use the default browser anyway.
Whenever someone asks me to build a Win-98 system for them, I always
run 98-Lite to get rid of IE and increase the system's performance,
and then install Mozilla as the browser. IE can't be the default
browser if it doesn't exist on the system. :D I also give them
OpenOffice as well.
Haven't had any complaints yet.
paul cooke
How do they do the windows-update thingy then???
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
Quantum Leaper
All the patches are downloadable for corprate customers but anyone can
download them but it can be a pain to upgrade, or you live with the default
holes in the OS. I have found most people never upgrade their systems
anyway, whats amazing is the number of companies that don't keep their
systems updated.
Quantum Leaper
I still have my floppies somewhere also, I did throw away the box last
year, when I was clean up the basement. Up until Netscape 4, I had bought
each version, it was a subscription price of about $15 - $20 unlike retail
of about double that for retail. I still remember when I got Netscape,
if you didn't have an ISP, they offered 3 different ones you could sign up
with, Sprint, Netcom (cheapest) and someone else.
Over the years I have gotten use to IE, and it works just fine, very few
problems, and also never a crash, unless I am having Hardware problems.
Luca T.
> Note the title slab wraps over, onto the body section. Note that the Title
> of the main content overlaps the image on the right. Note that the language
> selection text overlaps the text column on the left.
>
> Now, this is certainly an edge case. But it's also an example of some of
> the flaws of CSS as it stands today.
Your examples can be easily fixed specifying a minwidth of the page... not
so hard to do.
If the screen is that little then you can disable CSS e _STILL_ read the
page perfectly... a thing that you can't do with tables.
CSS also allows blind ppl and ppl with disabilities to read your page,
while tables make it a nightmare for them.
So, between the many and huge problems of tables and the FEW problems of CSS (that can almost always be
fixed in some way) i prefer much more CSS.
If some kind of layout is too hard to make in CSS, then you just make a
different layout.
Why CSS3? To improve CSS... why XHTML if not to improve HTML?
CSS2 certainly does have some limitations... but saying that it is
worthless for layout is just bullshit since MANY websites use CSS2 for
layout. Sure, it requires some learning and some wasted time dealing with
CSS2 problems, but once you learned them and how to "fix" them, you can do
almost anything with GREAT advantage of disabled users and handheld devices users.
LEE Sau Dan
>> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed
>> browsing, download manager, etc).
Tom> IE is getting all of that in the next revision. Due for
Tom> release with XP SP2.
Translation: Mozilla is better than IE ***NOW***.
Translation2: IE _might_ be able to catch up with what Mozilla can now
do, some time in the ***future***.
Tom> You can already get all of that with free addins if you want
Tom> it.
You can already get all of that with Mozilla, **builtin**.
>> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
Tom> IE is being re-written from the ground up for inclusion in
Tom> Longhorn.
Translation (again): Mozilla is much better than IE ***NOW***.
Tom> Currently, I agree that Moz is overall a better browser, but
Tom> I happen to know that MS is working on getting the standards
Tom> compliance (particularly CSS compliance) up to snuff and
Tom> adding these oh, so important features of tabbed browsing,
Tom> etc.
That they're working on it doesn't in any way imply "they'll succeed".
Given M$'s track record in producing bugware, haha...
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Bob Hauck
> Finally some one who gets it! Netscape did way more to kill Netscape
> then MS did.
There seems to be quite a lot of revisionist history going around. It
is true that NS4 was not a very good product. That's why the Mozilla
people had to throw most of it out and start over. But did Netscape
fail because it was bad, or was it bad because Netscape was failing? I
think it was the latter.
Netscape was a startup company trying to compete against a giant that
also owned the major platform they were developing for. Their
competitor could do all kinds of things to favor their own product over
Netscape's. That's a tough position to be in. Netscape's management
apparently thought that if they could win on features that they would
get enough breathing room to clean up the product later. They were not
the first company to do this, it is a classic Microsoft marketing plan.
In hindsight that may have been a mistake, but OTOH they didn't have a
whole lot of winning strategies available to them once MS decided to
"cut off their air supply". If they hadn't kept up on features and had
concentrated on quality it is likely that we'd be here talking about how
they just couldn't keep up and should have moved faster. Note that this
is exactly what naysayers have said about Mozilla until recently, so
there's evidence that it would have played out that way.
IOW, I don't think there was any way for Netscape to win. The best case
scenarios would have been to make an illegal deal to split the market
(which Marc Andreeson claims they were offered), or have a strategy to
be bought by MS. Note how many post-Netscape startups have explicitly
pursued that latter strategy. The reason is that it is one of the few
ways to make big money on Windows these days.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Sinister Midget
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> writes:
>
> >> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed
> >> browsing, download manager, etc).
>
> Tom> IE is getting all of that in the next revision. Due for
> Tom> release with XP SP2.
>
> Translation: Mozilla is better than IE ***NOW***.
>
> Translation2: IE _might_ be able to catch up with what Mozilla can now
> do, some time in the ***future***.
You're missing the point. All of that is useless twaddle because IE
doesn't have it. Once they do, it's "innovation".
HTH
--
"Windows cannot find your .sig file, use .pwd instead y/n?"
Sinister Midget
I recall Winders randomly deleting NS files and/or disabling registry
settings in Winders 95. That was NS 2 & 3 IIRC. I know I had to
reinstall it every now and then when it would just totally stop working
or start crashing right in the middle of doing things.
One /could/ claim it was due to instability in NS if not for several
others documenting exactly what was being deleted, the penchant for
doing it regularly, and proving it was due to 95 destroying things.
(If Ewik is monitoring, either he, Milo T. Simon or both can step in at
this point and make claims of coincidentalism taking place and causing
this. Too bad it was documented for posterity and will cause their
erroneous claims to be refuted quite handily. Again.)
--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
Scarletdown
news:1210960.V...@cooke-main-box.madhouse:
>> Haven't had any complaints yet.
>
> How do they do the windows-update thingy then???
>
They don't. Truth to tell, none of them have had any need to use
Windows Update so far. But if they ask about it, then I can easily
put IE back on temporarily, update for them, and then remove IE
again. Y'see, 98-Lite actually makes it easy to install or uninstall
IE from the Add-Remove Programs function in the Control Panel. One
of these days, I may go ahead and buy 98-Lite Professional, which
allows you to make even more Windows features optional. The trial
version only lets you mess with IE, the Help Files, and System
Information. Once I get 98-Lite Pro, it will be interesting to see
just how minimal a 98 system I can put together. Then again, since I
am in the process of upgrading completely to Debian, getting 98-Lite
Pro may be rather wasteful on my part...
Quantum Leaper
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:55:02 GMT, Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>
>> Finally some one who gets it! Netscape did way more to kill Netscape
>> then MS did.
>
> There seems to be quite a lot of revisionist history going around. It
> is true that NS4 was not a very good product. That's why the Mozilla
> people had to throw most of it out and start over. But did Netscape
> fail because it was bad, or was it bad because Netscape was failing? I
> think it was the latter.
>
with 85%+ of the market, and up until IE4, IE sucked alot more then NS4.
Netscape problem was release a product full of bugs, they should have
waited a month or two and got rid of some (most) of the more severe bugs.
> Netscape was a startup company trying to compete against a giant that
> also owned the major platform they were developing for. Their
> competitor could do all kinds of things to favor their own product over
> Netscape's. That's a tough position to be in. Netscape's management
> apparently thought that if they could win on features that they would
> get enough breathing room to clean up the product later. They were not
> the first company to do this, it is a classic Microsoft marketing plan.
>
A giant company with a product NOBODY wanted to use. I don't know of
anyone use would willing use IE3 for more than 5 minutes, thats how much it
stunk.
> In hindsight that may have been a mistake, but OTOH they didn't have a
> whole lot of winning strategies available to them once MS decided to
> "cut off their air supply". If they hadn't kept up on features and had
> concentrated on quality it is likely that we'd be here talking about how
> they just couldn't keep up and should have moved faster. Note that this
> is exactly what naysayers have said about Mozilla until recently, so
> there's evidence that it would have played out that way.
>
> IOW, I don't think there was any way for Netscape to win. The best case
> scenarios would have been to make an illegal deal to split the market
> (which Marc Andreeson claims they were offered), or have a strategy to
> be bought by MS. Note how many post-Netscape startups have explicitly
> pursued that latter strategy. The reason is that it is one of the few
> ways to make big money on Windows these days.
You never know, Netscape did have a better product until NS4 drove users
away. I know I would never have switched if NS4 had atleast been stable
for more than 10 minutes. The fact is I had to USE IE4 on my friends
computer for about an hour before I was conviced it was a better product.
Tom Shelton
> Bob Hauck blubbered effusively on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 at 16:08 GMT:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:55:02 GMT, Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Finally some one who gets it! Netscape did way more to kill Netscape
>>> then MS did.
<snip>
> settings in Winders 95. That was NS 2 & 3 IIRC. I know I had to
> reinstall it every now and then when it would just totally stop working
> or start crashing right in the middle of doing things.
>
> One /could/ claim it was due to instability in NS if not for several
> others documenting exactly what was being deleted, the penchant for
> doing it regularly, and proving it was due to 95 destroying things.
>
> (If Ewik is monitoring, either he, Milo T. Simon or both can step in at
> this point and make claims of coincidentalism taking place and causing
> this. Too bad it was documented for posterity and will cause their
> erroneous claims to be refuted quite handily. Again.)
>
What you say maybe true. But I never had it happen - and I ran N3 with
IE4 and 5 for quite some time. The only Netscape I had trouble with was
4. I tried 6 for a couple of days - but it was so ugly that I couldn't
stand it.
--
Tom Shelton
Quantum Leaper
I never had it do that exclusively with Netscape though Iomega IDE zip
drivers would corrupt the registry in an instant, the parallel driver
worked great though.
I had used NS1 though NS3 with multiply different updates, Windows 95
would delete randomly, so software would break, I had stuff like that
happen with a lot of different apps, under W95. So it wasn't a problem
with only Netscape but a problem with a lot applications and Windows 95.
When I was programming on Windows 95, and your application crashed you have
it delete the file that was open at the time.
Tom Shelton
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:55:02 GMT, Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>
>> Finally some one who gets it! Netscape did way more to kill Netscape
>> then MS did.
>
> There seems to be quite a lot of revisionist history going around. It
> is true that NS4 was not a very good product. That's why the Mozilla
> people had to throw most of it out and start over. But did Netscape
> fail because it was bad, or was it bad because Netscape was failing? I
> think it was the latter.
>
I honestly think it was the first. They had like 80-90% market share
at the time they created that pile of steaming poo that was communicator.
You can't tell me that they didn't have the resources to make a better
product.
I'm not saying that MS wasn't guilty of trying to squash them - what I
am saying is that they sure helped MS do it. I knew a lot of people at
the time that dumped Netscape simply because Communicator was such a
hog. And where do you think they went? Face it, MS said boo and
Netscape blinked. I'm not trying to justify MS, but I am saying that
Netscape bears a lot of the burden for it's own demise.
Maybe in the end, MS would have beat Netscape anyway - but it wouldn't
have only taken one browser release if Netscape hadn't been so bad.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> writes:
>
> >> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed
> >> browsing, download manager, etc).
>
> Tom> IE is getting all of that in the next revision. Due for
> Tom> release with XP SP2.
>
> Translation: Mozilla is better than IE ***NOW***.
>
> Translation2: IE _might_ be able to catch up with what Mozilla can now
> do, some time in the ***future***.
>
>
> Tom> You can already get all of that with free addins if you want
> Tom> it.
>
> You can already get all of that with Mozilla, **builtin**.
>
>
> >> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>
> Tom> IE is being re-written from the ground up for inclusion in
> Tom> Longhorn.
>
> Translation (again): Mozilla is much better than IE ***NOW***.
>
>
> Tom> Currently, I agree that Moz is overall a better browser, but
> Tom> I happen to know that MS is working on getting the standards
> Tom> compliance (particularly CSS compliance) up to snuff and
> Tom> adding these oh, so important features of tabbed browsing,
> Tom> etc.
>
> That they're working on it doesn't in any way imply "they'll succeed".
> Given M$'s track record in producing bugware, haha...
>
>
I was only pointing out that MS is indeed working on IE and is
upgrading it - contrary to the false claims made by Luca T.
Personally, I don't care about tabbed browsing or download managers
- who cares. Popup blocking is nice, but I can get that with a small
free download. It's nice that Moz has a lot of builtin features, and
I'm sure that is a selling point. But the fact is on Windows, I still
prefer to use IE. Maybe it's my browsing habbits, or maybe I'm just not
as gullible as the average joe - or maybe I'm just lucky - but I just
don't have problems using IE. I do run Spybot about once a week, just
to make sure and all it ever finds are tracking cookies. I think it has
found actual spyware maybe twice. And before you jump on me for needing
to check for spyware - I agree that that sucks. But, since it has never
been a real problem for me I continue to use IE because even though it
is not technically as good a browser, I like the browsing experience
better.
And don't under estimate the fact that MS has indeed noticed that there
are now better more secure browsers. They are rewriting it - and other
then being dog slow (pre-alpha debug code), I'm hearing pretty good
things about IE and OE 7. Will it be better? Will MS succeed? Who
knows, but the changes for XP SP2 maybe a good indicator.
--
Tom Shelton
John Bailo
> And don't under estimate the fact that MS has indeed noticed that there
> are now better more secure browsers. They are rewriting it - and other
> then being dog slow (pre-alpha debug code), I'm hearing pretty good
> things about IE and OE 7. Will it be better? Will MS succeed? Who
> knows, but the changes for XP SP2 maybe a good indicator.
>
Tom,
Everything you say makes sense; however, you should understand
that m$ does not think about browsers and the internet the
way everyone else does. Think of every thing m$ has ever
done with technology -- it's all designed to 'fold' back into
the m$ income stream. No way, no how do they want to design
a standards compliant browser. Everything they have done so far,
including releasing bug-ridden server software -- is to
discredit the Internet.
The good news is: it backfired and exploded in their faces.
I use Firebird on LoseDOS at work and Navigator on Linux
at work and at my apartment.
Milo T.
> Why CSS3? To improve CSS... why XHTML if not to improve HTML?
> CSS2 certainly does have some limitations... but saying that it is
> worthless for layout is just bullshit since MANY websites use CSS2 for
> layout. Sure, it requires some learning and some wasted time dealing with
> CSS2 problems, but once you learned them and how to "fix" them, you can do
> almost anything with GREAT advantage of disabled users and handheld devices users.
*almost* anything. *almost*. It's still pretty worthless for any
complicated layout work, particularly bordered layout. That's my opinion,
borne out from implementing quite a few websites, and I'm sticking with it.
Milo T.
If it was documented "for posterity", perhaps you could stop being an ass
and just link to the documentation so your claims can be verified?
Terry
My opinion is that as Netscape charged customers to license Navigator, and
that Netscape derived a significant portion of its revenue from selling
browser licenses, the actions of Microsoft as detailed, below cut off
Netscapes funding, to it's detriment. This prevented Netscape from
continuing its previous (and expensive) high standard of development.
So people may complain all the like about Netscape 4, however the
reasons for Netscapes failure may be attributed to Microsoft
exerting its monopoly power.
Excerpts from Judge Penfield Jacksons "Microsoft Finding of Fact"
http://news.com.com/html/ne/Special/Microsoft/findingoffacts.html
137. ... Netscape charged customers to license Navigator, and that Netscape
derived a significant portion of its revenue from selling browser licenses.
1994: Microsoft is alarmed at Netscape's dramatic acceptance by the
public:
72. As soon as Netscape released Navigator on December 15, 1994, the
product began to enjoy dramatic acceptance by the public; shortly after
its release, consumers were already using Navigator far more than any
other browser product. This alarmed Microsoft, which feared that
Navigator's enthusiastic reception could embolden Netscape to develop
Navigator into an alternative platform for applications development.
In late May 1995, Bill Gates, the chairman and CEO of Microsoft, sent
a memorandum entitled ``The Internet Tidal Wave'' to Microsoft's
executives describing Netscape as a ``new competitor `born' on the
Internet.'' He warned his colleagues within Microsoft that Netscape
was ``pursuing a multi?platform strategy where they move the key API
into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system.'' By
the late spring of 1995, the executives responsible for setting
Microsoft's corporate strategy were deeply concerned that Netscape
was moving its business in a direction that could diminish the
applications barrier to entry.
1995:Microsoft executives commence campaign to convince Netscape to halt its
development of platform level browsing technologies for Windows 95.
1995:Brad Chase's promises to make the use of any browser other than
Internet Explorer on Windows ``a jolting experience.''
80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May 1995 that
Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to run on Windows 95,
which was due to be released in a couple of months. Microsoft's senior
executives understood that if they could prevent this version of Navigator
from presenting alternatives to the Internet?related APIs in Windows 95,
the technologies branded as Navigator would cease to present an alternative
platform to developers. Even if non?Windows versions of Navigator exposed
Internet?related APIs, applications written to those APIs would not run on
the platform Microsoft executives expected to enjoy the largest installed
base, i.e., Windows 95. So, as long as the version of Navigator written
for Windows 95 relied on Microsoft's Internet?related APIs instead of
exposing its own, developing for Navigator would not mean developing
cross?platform. Developers of network?centric applications thus would not
be drawn to Navigator's APIs in substantial numbers. Therefore, with the
encouragement and support of Gates, a group of Microsoft executives commenced
a campaign in the summer of 1995 to convince Netscape to halt its
development of platform?level browsing technologies for Windows 95.
Microsoft Withholding Crucial Technical Information
90. Microsoft knew that Netscape needed certain critical technical
information and assistance in order to complete its Windows 95 version
of Navigator in time for the retail release of Windows 95. Indeed, Netscape
executives had made a point of requesting this information, especially the
so called Remote Network Access (``RNA'') API, at the June 21 meeting. As
was discussed above, the Microsoft representatives at the meeting had
responded that the haste with which Netscape received the desired technical
information would depend on whether Netscape entered the so?called
``special relationship'' with Microsoft. Specifically, Microsoft
representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two
companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received
the RNA API immediately or in three months.
91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its
executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead
for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release
the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more
than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the
release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of
Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape
was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.
135. From 1995 onward, Microsoft spent more than $100 million each year
developing Internet Explorer. The firm's management gradually increased
the number of developers working on Internet Explorer from five or six in
early 1995 to more than one thousand in 1999.
Microsoft Giving Internet Explorer Away and Rewarding Firms that Helped
Build Its Usage Share
136. In addition to improving the quality of Internet Explorer, Microsoft
sought to increase the product's share of browser usage by giving it away
for free. In many cases, Microsoft also gave other firms things of value
(at substantial cost to Microsoft) in exchange for their commitment to
distribute and promote Internet Explorer, sometimes explicitly at
Navigator's expense.
Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels
148. Knowing that OEMs and IAPs represented the most efficient
distribution channels of browsing software, Microsoft sought to ensure that,
to as great an extent as possible, OEMs and IAPs bundled and promoted
Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator.
1997:
Microsoft Binds Internet Explorer to Windows
159. Microsoft knew that the inability to remove Internet Explorer made OEMs
less disposed to pre install Navigator onto Windows 95.
216. Microsoft's restrictions succeeded in raising the costs to OEMs of pre
installing and promoting Navigator. These increased costs, in turn, were
in some cases significant enough to deter OEMs from pre?installing Navigator
altogether. In other cases, as is discussed in the next section, OEMs
decided not to pre?install Navigator after Microsoft brought still more
pressure to bear.
239. Microsoft has largely succeeded in exiling Navigator from the crucial
OEM distribution channel. Even though a few OEMs continue to offer Navigator
on some of their PCs, Microsoft has caused the number of OEMs offering
Navigator, and the number of PCs on which they offer it, to decline
dramatically.
Before 1996, Navigator enjoyed a substantial and growing
presence on the desktop of new PCs. Over the next two years, however,
Microsoft's actions forced the number of copies of Navigator distributed
through the OEM channel down to an exiguous fraction of what it had
been.
Smmary:
1998:
By January 1998, Kempin could report to his superiors at Microsoft that, of
the sixty OEM sub?channels (15 major OEMs each offering corporate desktop,
consumer/small business, notebook, and workstation PCs), Navigator was being
shipped through only four. Furthermore, most of the PCs shipped with
Navigator featured the product in a manner much less likely to lead to usage
than if its icon appeared on the desktop. For example, Sony only featured
Navigator in a folder rather than on the desktop, and Gateway only shipped
Navigator on a separate CD?ROM rather than pre?installed on the hard drive.
By the beginning of January 1999, Navigator was present on the desktop of
only a tiny percentage of the PCs that OEMs were shipping.
............ Netscape browser history...........
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/netscape.htm
3.0B1 Apr. 1996 First Beta which was originally titled Atlas, this
release added many new plug-ins, and support for background colors in
tables.
3.0B5 Jul. 1996 This version adds support for underlining, frame
border control and Font FACE styles. It also adds new elements to allow
for column layout (<Multicol>) and spacing control
3.0B7 Aug. 1996 The only new HTML feature in this version appears
to be the ARCHIVE attribute to the APPLET element.
3.0-3.04 Aug. 1996-
Oct. 1997 Final Release of version 3. Point releases beyond this add no
new HTML support, just address Javascript functionality and security bugs.
4.0B1 Dec. 1996 Preview release of 4.0 (Netscape Communicator.) This
adds the new LAYER element that allows precise positioning control in
documents.
4.0B2 Feb. 1997 Second preview release of 4.0 (Netscape Communicator.)
This adds in-line layering, and Cascading/JavaScript Style Sheet Support.
4.0B3 Apr. 1997 Third preview release of 4.0 (Netscape Communicator.)
Improves upon the very rudimentary style sheet support in Beta 2 (PR2.)
4.0B4/5 May. 1997 Fourth and fifth beta of 4.0. Beta 4 was a
PC-only release with minor HTML improvements, while Beta 5 is cross-platform
and adds the Netcaster push technology.
4.0-4.08 Jun. 1997-
Nov. 1998 Final Release of Communicator. Final tally adds more CSS
support (much but not all of the CSS1 spec and the CSS positioning draft
are implemented), minimal dynamic font and OBJECT element support. Point
releases beyond this add no new HTML support, just address security bugs.
Jan. 1998 Netscape announces its browser will be free.
Also announced: Browser source code will be made available for free on
the Internet.
Mozilla project begins
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Magic Nose Goblin
> > Now I have a decent OS and a quite up to date version of Mozilla, I
> > find the opposite is true. I need to check & debug using IE because it is
> > now the picky one. From minor html errors to javascripting, Mozilla is
> > much more resilient in every way.
>
> The main failing with IE is it's piss-poor support for CSS. As a web
> developer myself, I'm constantly having to remotely log into a windows
> machine and check what I do on IE to check to see if it can handle what
> I'm coding. Even when my CSS sheet check out W3C correct, IE can still
> have troubles with it.
>
> You know, if MS really cared about things like standards though, I'm
> sure they could do it brilliantly. I mean they do have the resources
> available to them (beyond cash). They just obviously do not care.
Precisely. I've been saying that for close to a decade now.
Magic Nose Goblin
> On 2003-11-27, Luca T. <lu...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> >
> >> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
> >> So, what's the deal here?
> >
> > Tell her to go back to study.
> >
> > If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
> > deserve the job she has now.
>
> <snip>
>
> > IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
> > download manager, etc).
>
> SP2. You can already get all of that with free addins if you want it.
>
> > IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>
>
> Currently, I agree that Moz is overall a better browser, but I happen to
> know that MS is working on getting the standards compliance
> (particularly CSS compliance) up to snuff and adding these oh, so
> important features of tabbed browsing, etc.
Tabbed browing IS important.
Tabs keep a browser's resource-hogging in check.
Less GUI windows means fewer window data-structures to initialize, maintain,
and keep in memory.
Not to mention the SIGNIFICANT response improvement of opening a new tab vs
opening a whole new fucking window.
Sinister Midget
A lot of people claimed they had problems with 4. I didn't care for it,
but I don't recall any real problems I had. 6 flat-out sucked. Yeah, it
was ugly. But it was also really bloated. 7 is an improvement on
several fronts. But I'm still not really fond of it.
OTOH, IE was always fast in apparent terms. Mostly because it loads a
lot of what it needs with the OS before IE is ever run. (KDE does a lot
of that, too. Run the apps under, say IceWM. Do it from a commandline
and you can watch it load libraries and such. Load the same apps under
KDE and they run up faster because it has some things preloaded.)
Mozilla has done some work to overcome the appearance of being slower
by placing itself in a standby mode during boot on Winders so some is
loaded in advance.
Still Firebird* beats them all for loading and browsing speed, even on
WinDoze. And its configurability puts the rest of them to shame, too.
* I finally overcame the few shortcomings I found in it (for my tastes)
and run it fulltime on both Win*DOH*s (when I have to ) and linux. I
/still/ wish it had bookmark-handling similar to Galeon, though: right-
click on a toolbar folder and get the option to add a bookmark there,
edit that folders, add new folders, etc, plus a whole lot of others.
--
Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.
Linønut
> I was only pointing out that MS is indeed working on IE and is
> upgrading it - contrary to the false claims made by Luca T.
> Personally, I don't care about tabbed browsing or download managers
> - who cares. Popup blocking is nice, but I can get that with a small
> free download. It's nice that Moz has a lot of builtin features, and
> I'm sure that is a selling point. But the fact is on Windows, I still
> prefer to use IE. Maybe it's my browsing habbits, or maybe I'm just not
> as gullible as the average joe - or maybe I'm just lucky - but I just
> don't have problems using IE. I do run Spybot about once a week, just
> to make sure and all it ever finds are tracking cookies. I think it has
> found actual spyware maybe twice. And before you jump on me for needing
> to check for spyware - I agree that that sucks. But, since it has never
> been a real problem for me I continue to use IE because even though it
> is not technically as good a browser, I like the browsing experience
> better.
>
> And don't under estimate the fact that MS has indeed noticed that there
> are now better more secure browsers. They are rewriting it - and other
> then being dog slow (pre-alpha debug code), I'm hearing pretty good
> things about IE and OE 7. Will it be better? Will MS succeed? Who
> knows, but the changes for XP SP2 maybe a good indicator.
Your story leaves me cold. Maybe IE will be a much better browser
later.
Too late for Microsoft for me. Sorry.
I though IE was pretty good from 1995 to about 2001.
No more.
It's still Microsoft. It's still monopoly code. It's still utterly
proprietary. It's still based up vendor lock-in.
Sorry.
--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:29:45 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:01:25 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:00:11 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://texturizer.net/firebird - becomes:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/firebird.png
>>>
>>> You surf the web with your browser window at 25% width?
>>
>> That wasn't the point. Please read what I wrote, don't just look at the
>> pretty pictures. That's just one symptom of the hackiness of CSS1&2.
>>
>> Read this. It might help you to understand this...
>>
>>
>> http://www.sitepoint.com/print/1213
>
>
> No I read it and the above and understand, just your example is not a
> really and example since you had to shrink your browser down to a level
> that no one would ever use.
Why do you assume that everyone has large displays? Remember, there are
lots of different web surfing environments coming online, some of them
quite small such as mobile web browsers on cell phones.
This is one reason most mobile browsers ignore much of the CSS spec,
because if they didn't, it would be impossible to read anything.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>
>> So, what's the deal here?
>
> Tell her to go back to study.
>
> If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
> deserve the job she has now.
While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%, neither
does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
about 3 years newer than IE6.
> IE is buggy.
Indeed, but then so is Mozilla.
> IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
As if such "standards" as -moz-binding, -moz-border-radius, etc.. aren't
making up it's own standards.
> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
> download manager, etc).
Yet if it had them, you'd be crying foul about how MS is putting third
parties out of business.
> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
There will be a new version in longhorn, and there may be an interim
release, but you're correct that it's old. They need to release something
major in a shorter time frame.
> IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
Not really. Users have to give persmission for such things to be
installed.
> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
Today's IE *IS* from two years ago.
Erik Funkenbusch
Hmm.. At most this might reduce the number of windows by 1 per tab, not
that significant really, considering that your typical application has
dozens if not hundreds of child windows.
> Not to mention the SIGNIFICANT response improvement of opening a new tab vs
> opening a whole new fucking window.
That's because the tab runs in the same process, meaning that if you run
into something that crashes the browser, it crashes all of them, not just
the currently open one.
Rick
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:17:28 +0100, Luca T. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>>
>>> So, what's the deal here?
>>
>> Tell her to go back to study.
>>
>> If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she
>> doesn't deserve the job she has now.
>
> While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%, neither
> does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
> about 3 years newer than IE6.
>
>> IE is buggy.
>
> Indeed, but then so is Mozilla.
IE is still buggy. m$ says its software is superior because it
dedicated paid professional programmers to write it. Ie is still buggy.
>
>> IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
>
> As if such "standards" as -moz-binding, -moz-border-radius, etc.. aren't
> making up it's own standards.
IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
>
>> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>> download manager, etc).
>
> Yet if it had them, you'd be crying foul about how MS is putting third
> parties out of business.
You don't know that. And ...IE misses many new features.
>
>> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>
> There will be a new version in longhorn, and there may be an interim
> release, but you're correct that it's old. They need to release something
> major in a shorter time frame.
Proof again that monopolies are bad.
>
>> IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
>
> Not really. Users have to give persmission for such things to be
> installed.
Really? Are you sure. Maybe you should bet your life on that statement.
>
>> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
>
> Today's IE *IS* from two years ago.
Today's IE is the most up-to-date version.
--
Rick
Rick
In IE, 5 pages are 5 windows. 10 are 10 windows. In a browser that
supports tabs, the number og pages is virtually unlimited in one window.
>
>> Not to mention the SIGNIFICANT response improvement of opening a new tab
>> vs opening a whole new fucking window.
>
> That's because the tab runs in the same process, meaning that if you run
> into something that crashes the browser, it crashes all of them, not just
> the currently open one.
It appears that is not important to others. Maybe that is because IE
crashes more often that other browsers.
--
Rick
Roy Culley
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:17:28 +0100, Luca T. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:49:12 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Sugapablo <russR...@sugapablo.com> writes:
>>
>>> So, what's the deal here?
>>
>> Tell her to go back to study.
>>
>> If she believes that IE is in any way superior to Mozilla then she doesn't
>> deserve the job she has now.
>
> While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%, neither
> does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
> about 3 years newer than IE6.
And why is that? Popular OSS applications are constantly enhanced and
improved upon. Mozilla will always be newer than IE explorer. This is
just an example of OSS is a superior development method than CSS.
>> IE is buggy.
>
> Indeed, but then so is Mozilla.
>
>> IE doesn't respect standards (it makes up its own standards).
>
> As if such "standards" as -moz-binding, -moz-border-radius, etc.. aren't
> making up it's own standards.
>
>> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>> download manager, etc).
>
> Yet if it had them, you'd be crying foul about how MS is putting third
> parties out of business.
Why? You have a really perverse view on the world Erik. The fact that
it takes 3rd party SW to give IE functionality that users want says
more about how MS, having illegally obtained their browser monopoly,
couldn't give a toss about those who use it.
>> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>
> There will be a new version in longhorn,
That's 2 to 3 years away. IE will then be over 5 years old. Where do
you think Mozilla will be then? It will be on most PC's whether Linux
or Windows.
> and there may be an interim release, but you're correct that it's
> old. They need to release something major in a shorter time frame.
May be an interim release! I don't think MS have any choice.
>> IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
>
> Not really. Users have to give persmission for such things to be
> installed.
Bollocks. Don't you read about IE exploits? Unless of course you mean
they must enable active scripting. But isn't that turned on by
default?
http://www.secunia.com/advisories/9711/
>> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
>
> Today's IE *IS* from two years ago.
You said 3 years above. The point is Erik, most browsers in widespread
use other than IE are continually developed. Why have MS done nothing
for 3 years with IE? Couldn't be that they thought they didn't need to
because they have an illegally maintained monopoly by any chance? IE
exemplifies exactly why MS and their illegally mainted monopoly are a
bad thing.
Freeride
> There will be a new version in longhorn, and there may be an interim
> release, but you're correct that it's old. They need to release something
> major in a shorter time frame.
It needs a complete rewrite!! IE is a massive piece of insecure shit!
And your beloved Microsoft is doing NOTHING to protect its customers!!
Erik Funkenbusch
Word is, the longhorn version will be a complete rewrite (or nearly so).
It's not like that can happen overnight. It took Netscape 4 years to
rewrite Mozilla (which was mostly Netscape developers on Netscape's/AOL's
payroll).
Erik Funkenbusch
>> While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%, neither
>> does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
>> about 3 years newer than IE6.
>
> And why is that? Popular OSS applications are constantly enhanced and
> improved upon. Mozilla will always be newer than IE explorer. This is
> just an example of OSS is a superior development method than CSS.
Mostly because Open Source is typically beta tested publicly. Remember,
Firebird et al are still beta versions. Open Office is only in it's second
official release, etc..
>>> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>>> download manager, etc).
>>
>> Yet if it had them, you'd be crying foul about how MS is putting third
>> parties out of business.
>
> Why? You have a really perverse view on the world Erik. The fact that
> it takes 3rd party SW to give IE functionality that users want says
> more about how MS, having illegally obtained their browser monopoly,
> couldn't give a toss about those who use it.
Yet when MS added junk mail filtering to OE, they were sued. When MS added
disk compression to DOS they were accused of monopolistic practices. When
MS added a browser to Windows, something that was previously third party
and people obviously wanted, they were putting Netscape out of business.
How exactly is my claim "perverse"? It's been demonstrated over and over.
>>> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>>
>> There will be a new version in longhorn,
>
> That's 2 to 3 years away. IE will then be over 5 years old. Where do
> you think Mozilla will be then? It will be on most PC's whether Linux
> or Windows.
Indeed. I agree with you. It will also show that it doesn't matter if a
browser is shipped with the OS, people will use whatever the best product
is.
>> and there may be an interim release, but you're correct that it's
>> old. They need to release something major in a shorter time frame.
>
> May be an interim release! I don't think MS have any choice.
I hope so.
>>> IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
>>
>> Not really. Users have to give persmission for such things to be
>> installed.
>
> Bollocks. Don't you read about IE exploits? Unless of course you mean
> they must enable active scripting. But isn't that turned on by
> default?
>
> http://www.secunia.com/advisories/9711/
Bugs not withstanding, of course. Bugs can be fixed.
>>> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>>> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
>>
>> Today's IE *IS* from two years ago.
>
> You said 3 years above.
I was talking in terms of design. IE6's design was created 3+ years ago.
IE6 was released a little over 2 years ago.
> The point is Erik, most browsers in widespread
> use other than IE are continually developed. Why have MS done nothing
> for 3 years with IE? Couldn't be that they thought they didn't need to
> because they have an illegally maintained monopoly by any chance? IE
> exemplifies exactly why MS and their illegally mainted monopoly are a
> bad thing.
Most likely, MS doesn't want to expend the resources to improve IE6, and
rather spend the resources on IE7, which is rumored to be a complete
rewrite.
John Bailo
> Word is, the longhorn version will be a complete rewrite (or nearly so).
> It's not like that can happen overnight. It took Netscape 4 years to
> rewrite Mozilla (which was mostly Netscape developers on Netscape's/AOL's
> payroll).
longhorn is cairo is IAYF is the stuff they promised
in 1998 and could not and will never deliver.
At this point, the only business m$ is in is musical
chairs -- who's gonna get stuck with those worthless
msft certs at $25 when it plummets to $15?
jim allchins is a court fool who bears the designation
'architect' the way a statue bears pigeon shit.
Freeride
> Indeed. I agree with you. It will also show that it doesn't matter if a
> browser is shipped with the OS, people will use whatever the best product
> is.
Sad thing it that there should be a remove option for that hunk of shit IE.
Erik Funkenbusch
And how do you propose that people read their online help if they did so?
Scarletdown
news:c0wuunan97oe$.d...@funkenbusch.com:
Running 98-Lite, I've eradicated IE from my system, and I have no
problems accessing those useless Windows Help files.
Erik Funkenbusch
98 shipped with old style windows help files. ME and Win2000 shipped with
HTML help files.
Scarletdown
If they are standard HTML (doubtful though since this is MS we're
talking about), there shouldn't be any reason why the user couldn't
read the help files in any web browser. :D
Erik Funkenbusch
The problem is not the HTML, it's that they're in a compressed archive with
contextual information and indexing. There isn't a standard way to define
how context sensitive help is linked to various HTML documents.
Otherwise you'd have thousands of HTML files sitting on your disk, along
with images and other data taking up a lot more space than they need to,
not to mention making it difficult to compartmentalize.
Tom Shelton
They are authored using standard html - but they are shipped in a
compressed binary format. You need IE to be able to read them. IE is
the bases for the help system from ME/2K on.
--
Tom Shelton
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
If they're HTML, then mozilla will access them just fine, if it doesn't,
then they aren't HTML, are they?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/yFiQd90bcYOAWPYRAoioAKDI8CsJ6zJ36Wffln2Udgn0zgYjwgCggC5x
ijHwJVqlYpEi62nz45hBMKs=
=rRGb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.
Tom Shelton
Not true in Windows. Each tab is a child window of the browser window.
I'm not how sure how it works in X - since I don't have any experience
programming for that environment - but in windows you aren't saving on
window handles. What you maybe saving is memory and speed, since you
don't have to reload all the dlls into a new process. But, IE loads
very quickly and I have never found memory to be a problem in this
regard - so I in fact, like it better not to use tabs. And, when they
are added (from what I have heard anyway) in XP SP2 - I plan to turn
them off, assuming that I can.
>>
>>> Not to mention the SIGNIFICANT response improvement of opening a new tab
>>> vs opening a whole new fucking window.
>>
>> That's because the tab runs in the same process, meaning that if you run
>> into something that crashes the browser, it crashes all of them, not just
>> the currently open one.
>
> It appears that is not important to others. Maybe that is because IE
> crashes more often that other browsers.
>
I have not had a significant number of IE crashes since v4. 5/5.5/6.0
have been very stable - and as far as that goes gotten better in that
regard each and every time. In fact, I am quite sure that windows Moz
Firebird has crashed more often on me then IE6 ever has - of course it's
still beta code :)
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:49:46 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:40:54 -0000, Scarletdown wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
>>> news:c0wuunan97oe$.d...@funkenbusch.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:18:36 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> If they're HTML, then mozilla will access them just fine, if it doesn't,
> then they aren't HTML, are they?
>
>
They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
shipped in a compressed binary format.
--
Tom Shelton
paul cooke
if they're .chm format then you need arCHMage to work access them in
Linux...
<http://freshmeat.net/projects/archmage/>
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
Jesse F. Hughes
> Tom Shelton blubbered effusively on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 at 18:25 GMT:
>
>> On 2003-11-28, Sinister Midget <s...@sletom002.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (If Ewik is monitoring, either he, Milo T. Simon or both can step in at
>>> this point and make claims of coincidentalism taking place and causing
>>> this. Too bad it was documented for posterity and will cause their
>>> erroneous claims to be refuted quite handily. Again.)
>>>
>>
>> What you say maybe true. But I never had it happen - and I ran N3 with
>> IE4 and 5 for quite some time. The only Netscape I had trouble with was
>> 4. I tried 6 for a couple of days - but it was so ugly that I couldn't
>> stand it.
>
> A lot of people claimed they had problems with 4. I didn't care for it,
> but I don't recall any real problems I had. 6 flat-out sucked. Yeah, it
> was ugly. But it was also really bloated. 7 is an improvement on
> several fronts. But I'm still not really fond of it.
But this is irrelevant. You said that MS deliberately deleted
register entries and that this fact was "documented for posterity".
Can you show us any such documentation?
I've never seen any complaints like that.
--
"These mathematicians are worse than communists, as how do you explain
their behavior? I *am* the American Dream, fighting for what should be
mine, having to get past weak-minded academics who are fighting to
block my success. But I shall prevail!!!" -- James S. Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
> If it was documented "for posterity", perhaps you could stop being an ass
> and just link to the documentation so your claims can be verified?
I hate it when I agree with "Milo".
--
"Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but
[their] objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per
se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest
companies in the history of this country." -- ADTI defends Microsoft
Erik Funkenbusch
>> They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
>> shipped in a compressed binary format.
>>
>
> if they're .chm format then you need arCHMage to work access them in
> Linux...
>
> <http://freshmeat.net/projects/archmage/>
This will not allow you to use a non-ie browser as the context sensitive
help engine in Windows, though.
Sinister Midget
> Sinister Midget <s...@sletom002.com> writes:
>
>> Tom Shelton blubbered effusively on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 at 18:25 GMT:
>>
>>> On 2003-11-28, Sinister Midget <s...@sletom002.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (If Ewik is monitoring, either he, Milo T. Simon or both can step in at
>>>> this point and make claims of coincidentalism taking place and causing
>>>> this. Too bad it was documented for posterity and will cause their
>>>> erroneous claims to be refuted quite handily. Again.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> What you say maybe true. But I never had it happen - and I ran N3 with
>>> IE4 and 5 for quite some time. The only Netscape I had trouble with was
>>> 4. I tried 6 for a couple of days - but it was so ugly that I couldn't
>>> stand it.
>>
>> A lot of people claimed they had problems with 4. I didn't care for it,
>> but I don't recall any real problems I had. 6 flat-out sucked. Yeah, it
>> was ugly. But it was also really bloated. 7 is an improvement on
>> several fronts. But I'm still not really fond of it.
>
> But this is irrelevant. You said that MS deliberately deleted
> register entries and that this fact was "documented for posterity".
> Can you show us any such documentation?
Marked for further reseach. I have to work today. I may or may not get
to it there. If not, I'll look it up when I return home (assuming time
is on my side then).
> I've never seen any complaints like that.
I first saw mention of it on either annoyances.org (early on, back when
the only thing they covered was Windoze 95) or (I can't recall the
correct spelling, so don't take this as gospel) Frank Condron's World
of Windows website (can't recall the URL, it was something like
"worldofwindows.com" or somesuch, but I used to visit there regularly
when I first started using Winders 95). More research brought me into
seeing other sites.
All I knew at the time was I kept having to reinstall Netscape, and I
wanted to find out how to fix it. The fact is that I /never/ found a
way to fix the problem. But I /do/ recall finding a couple of pages
that documented the problem, and one of them even named the files that
regularly disappeared. They didn't all vanish every time, but they had
the same effect. And I found various of those files coming up missing
the 2 or 3 times I looked to see.
I later, like over a year later, met my wife and she told me she had
the same problem once before. Over time I reinstalled hers several
times and mine at least twice more before I stopped using WinDOS
altogether for myself. Her problems stopped sometime after that (I
didn't pay close attention to it as it was unexpected). I'm guessing
sometime in 98. I don't know what fixed it, but she was still using 95.
Could've been a Winders update. Could've been something Netscape did. I
don't know. It just stopped goofing up.
I'll see what I can track down when time permits.
--
You look through tinted Windows and only see the closed Gates beyond them.
Roy Culley
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:57:12 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>>> While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%, neither
>>> does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
>>> about 3 years newer than IE6.
>>
>> And why is that? Popular OSS applications are constantly enhanced and
>> improved upon. Mozilla will always be newer than IE explorer. This is
>> just an example of OSS is a superior development method than CSS.
>
> Mostly because Open Source is typically beta tested publicly.
> Remember, Firebird et al are still beta versions. Open Office is
> only in it's second official release, etc..
Yet Mozilla, OO.o, etc tend to be far less buggy than IE. Look at all
the bugs in IE yet it has been released, non-beta, for 3 years! Open
your eyes Erik, OSS is clearly a superior development model.
>>>> IE misses many new features (like popup blocking, tabbed browsing,
>>>> download manager, etc).
>>>
>>> Yet if it had them, you'd be crying foul about how MS is putting third
>>> parties out of business.
>>
>> Why? You have a really perverse view on the world Erik. The fact that
>> it takes 3rd party SW to give IE functionality that users want says
>> more about how MS, having illegally obtained their browser monopoly,
>> couldn't give a toss about those who use it.
>
> Yet when MS added junk mail filtering to OE, they were sued. When MS added
> disk compression to DOS they were accused of monopolistic practices. When
> MS added a browser to Windows, something that was previously third party
> and people obviously wanted, they were putting Netscape out of business.
>
> How exactly is my claim "perverse"? It's been demonstrated over and over.
MS are a monopoly so the rules are different for them. They not only
bundled IE with Windows but made it a part of the OS. I remember
reading once that MS spent $300M one year on IE development. Only a
company with a monoploy and enormous amount of money in the bank can
afford to spend that amount of money get give the SW away for free.
MS still earn over 80% profit on Windows and Office. Again only a
company with a monopoly can make profits of that magnitude. They are
ripping customers off because of their monopoly position. Yet they do
nothing about bugs in IE some of which have been known for years.
>>>> IE is OLD and M$ is not upgrading it.
>>>
>>> There will be a new version in longhorn,
>>
>> That's 2 to 3 years away. IE will then be over 5 years old. Where do
>> you think Mozilla will be then? It will be on most PC's whether Linux
>> or Windows.
>
> Indeed. I agree with you. It will also show that it doesn't matter
> if a browser is shipped with the OS, people will use whatever the
> best product is.
Don't you need to use IE to use their update service?
>>> and there may be an interim release, but you're correct that it's
>>> old. They need to release something major in a shorter time frame.
>>
>> May be an interim release! I don't think MS have any choice.
>
> I hope so.
>
>>>> IE is an open door for viruses and dialers.
>>>
>>> Not really. Users have to give persmission for such things to be
>>> installed.
>>
>> Bollocks. Don't you read about IE exploits? Unless of course you mean
>> they must enable active scripting. But isn't that turned on by
>> default?
>>
>> http://www.secunia.com/advisories/9711/
>
> Bugs not withstanding, of course. Bugs can be fixed.
Yet some of the bugs used in that exploit have been known for 2 years
or more. MS just do not care about security unless it leads to bad
publicity. I'm sure there will be a patch for IE real soon now since a
proof of concept has been released. Why didn't MS fix these bugs when
they were first discovered?
>>>> She is comparing today's IE to Netscape of two years ago... if she works
>>>> in any IT field she should at least keep herself updated.
>>>
>>> Today's IE *IS* from two years ago.
>>
>> You said 3 years above.
>
> I was talking in terms of design. IE6's design was created 3+ years ago.
> IE6 was released a little over 2 years ago.
>
>> The point is Erik, most browsers in widespread
>> use other than IE are continually developed. Why have MS done nothing
>> for 3 years with IE? Couldn't be that they thought they didn't need to
>> because they have an illegally maintained monopoly by any chance? IE
>> exemplifies exactly why MS and their illegally mainted monopoly are a
>> bad thing.
>
> Most likely, MS doesn't want to expend the resources to improve IE6, and
> rather spend the resources on IE7, which is rumored to be a complete
> rewrite.
Always the MS apologist Erik. The simple fact is MS couldn't care less
about fixing bugs unless it causes them bad publicity. Perhaps their
profits would be a tad lower than 80% if they put their customers
first and spend the time and effort to fix known problems with their
SW.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:57:12 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>>> While it's quite true that IE doesn't adhere to the standard 100%,
>>> neither
>>> does mozilla. Mozilla is certainly more supportive, but then it's also
>>> about 3 years newer than IE6.
>>
>> And why is that? Popular OSS applications are constantly enhanced and
>> improved upon. Mozilla will always be newer than IE explorer. This is
>> just an example of OSS is a superior development method than CSS.
>
> Mostly because Open Source is typically beta tested publicly. Remember,
> Firebird et al are still beta versions. Open Office is only in it's
> second official release, etc..
>
You are now free to show us the "several similar exploits and bugs" in Mutt,
Pine and Netscape, Erik.
Those you claimed are there, similar to this piece of garbage OE.
You claimed it, and you constantly failed to provide those URLs you claim
exists.
Show us, Erik.
< snip more Erik F drivel >
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
paul cooke
so we have yet another way that Microsoft forces ms-windows users to keep IE
on their machines... as the "help" viewer... so even though I've got Opera
7 for windows set as my default browser, this will only come up in an IE
window...
So when are Microsoft going to make it easy to get rid of IE then??? The
Chinese have just revealed that there are yet another seven new holes in
IE...
<http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=3908958>
Why can't I get rid of that mass of exposed and lurking insecurities??? I've
found the browser I want... Why can't I uninstall that insecure mess called
IE that leaves loads of holes in my windows systems???
oh and I just love this "comment" from Russ Cooper...
|Cooper said, however, he was not yet concerned about the security holes
|because of the inactivity.
|
| "There just aren't any new attacks being made" on Internet Explorer, he
|said.
that's because those that already exist are still being successfully
exploited... en masse!!! It's like shooting ducks in a barrel...
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:23:48 GMT, paul cooke wrote:
>>
>>>> They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
>>>> shipped in a compressed binary format.
>>>>
>>>
>>> if they're .chm format then you need arCHMage to work access them in
>>> Linux...
>>>
>>> <http://freshmeat.net/projects/archmage/>
>>
>> This will not allow you to use a non-ie browser as the context sensitive
>> help engine in Windows, though.
>
> so we have yet another way that Microsoft forces ms-windows users to keep IE
> on their machines... as the "help" viewer... so even though I've got Opera
> 7 for windows set as my default browser, this will only come up in an IE
> window...
As I said, considering that there is no standard way to impart context
sensitive help to a web browser, it would be impossible for Opera to
function that way, even if it could read the chm files.
Let me put this another way. Let's look at, say, KDE. I don't have a
machine up and running to test this myself, but i'd bet that you can't get
context sensitive help in KDE's help system using opera. Can you? I'd bet
it's hard coded to konqueror's HTML renderer. Am I right?
If so, how is Microsoft so evil for doing the same thing KDE is doing?
BTW, i'm not talking about simply viewing the help files, i'm talking about
deep linking of help topics. Including bubble help/tooltips and the like.
You know, that nifty feature of KDE to display a web page in the tooltip?
Does that allow you to use Opera for the renderer? No? Well why not?
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:07:55 GMT, paul cooke wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:23:48 GMT, paul cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
>>>>> shipped in a compressed binary format.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if they're .chm format then you need arCHMage to work access them in
>>>> Linux...
>>>>
>>>> <http://freshmeat.net/projects/archmage/>
>>>
>>> This will not allow you to use a non-ie browser as the context sensitive
>>> help engine in Windows, though.
>>
>> so we have yet another way that Microsoft forces ms-windows users to keep
>> IE on their machines... as the "help" viewer... so even though I've got
>> Opera 7 for windows set as my default browser, this will only come up in
>> an IE window...
>
> As I said, considering that there is no standard way to impart context
> sensitive help to a web browser, it would be impossible for Opera to
> function that way, even if it could read the chm files.
>
> Let me put this another way. Let's look at, say, KDE. I don't have a
> machine up and running to test this myself, but i'd bet that you can't get
> context sensitive help in KDE's help system using opera. Can you? I'd
> bet
> it's hard coded to konqueror's HTML renderer. Am I right?
>
Nope. You are completely wrong. There is *no* hardcoded way to display it
There is not even the need to have X running
Shows how much you know about linux in general
> If so, how is Microsoft so evil for doing the same thing KDE is doing?
You were just told that it is *not* the same in KDE
Fine don, Erik F, FUDmeister, first you "assume" that it is the same in
linux, then you defend MS with your assumed idiocy
> BTW, i'm not talking about simply viewing the help files, i'm talking
> about
> deep linking of help topics. Including bubble help/tooltips and the like.
> You know, that nifty feature of KDE to display a web page in the tooltip?
> Does that allow you to use Opera for the renderer? No? Well why not?
Have you checked that it does not? No? Well, why not?
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz
> Mostly because Open Source is typically beta tested publicly. Remember,
> Firebird et al are still beta versions. Open Office is only in it's second
> official release, etc..
It's not because Microsoft doesn't call its software beta that it
magically becomes stable.
--
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz
Use Linux. Educate yourself. Emancipate yourself.
(Paul Cooke on comp.os.linux.advocacy)
Bob Hauck
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:55:02 GMT, Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>>> Finally some one who gets it! Netscape did way more to kill Netscape
>>> then MS did.
>> But did Netscape fail because it was bad, or was it bad because
>> Netscape was failing? I think it was the latter.
>>
> Your the one who is the revisionist, Netscape was NUMBER 1 at the time
> with 85%+ of the market, and up until IE4, IE sucked alot more then
> NS4.
IE4 was released only a few months after NS4. NS4 was June 97, IE4 was
Oct 97. MS had started their bundling program and their ISP bribery
program by then as well, so while NS still had a large share it was
clear what Microsoft's response was going to be.
The revisionism is that all of Microsoft's competitors failed because
they made this mistake or that mistake. The "they were all stupid"
theory. Well, they weren't. I don't think you can argue that Jim
Barksdale and the other founders of Netscape were stupid. They made
mistakes, sure, but mostly in hindsight. They could see what MS was up
to and had to try to come up with a strategy.
The forest that isn't being seen for these trees is that in order to
succeed NS could not make any mistakes at all. Microsoft, on the other
hand, makes huge mistakes all the time, but because of their cash-cows
of Office and Windows they do not suffer from them like a smaller
competitor does. They also get to play games with the platform to make
life harder for competitors.
> Netscape problem was release a product full of bugs, they should have
> waited a month or two and got rid of some (most) of the more severe bugs.
Maybe that would have helped them. But I don't think so.
>> Netscape was a startup company trying to compete against a giant that
>> also owned the major platform they were developing for.
> A giant company with a product NOBODY wanted to use.
But a company that could bundle their browser with their OS. A company
that spent millions on various "co-marketing" programs to get ISP's to
distribute their browser. A company that was willing to threaten OEM's
that dared to put Netscape on the computers they sold. And a company
with the human resources to catch up technically.
Netscape knew that they had a lot to be worried about even with 80%
market share. The market was growing very fast and MS was making some
moves that would lock them out of much of that growth.
>> IOW, I don't think there was any way for Netscape to win.
> You never know, Netscape did have a better product until NS4 drove
> users away.
Having a better product is often not enough. MS had overwhelming
advantages in marketing.
Opera survives by filling niches that MS isn't interested in. They run
on Linux and cell phones for example. Netscape could have pursued that
strategy and been content with being a minor player. I don't see how
they could ever have been the Intuit or Adobe of the browser market,
which is what they wanted.
Note how few new Adobes have arisen since 1995. Note how companies like
Autodesk and Adobe and Intuit stick to their little niche. There is a
reason for that and it isn't that Adobe et al management are stupid, it
is that they are smart. They don't want to give MS a reason to get into
their market.
> I know I would never have switched if NS4 had atleast been stable
> for more than 10 minutes.
Well, I never used the Windows version much, but the Linux version was
stable for more than ten minutes. It was buggy, but not unusable.
Heck, I only got my wife to switch to Mozilla from NS 4.78 about a year
ago.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Bob Hauck
> On 2003-11-28, Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> But did Netscape fail because it was bad, or was it bad because
>> Netscape was failing? I think it was the latter.
>
> I honestly think it was the first. They had like 80-90% market share
> at the time they created that pile of steaming poo that was communicator.
Yes, but MS was well along on their air-supply cutoff plan by then. The
people running Netscape could see what was going on. IE4 came out only
a few months after NS4 and it was competitive. Perhaps NS made the
wrong choice by releasing early, but I don't think it would have made
much difference in the long run.
> You can't tell me that they didn't have the resources to make a better
> product.
They didn't have the _time_ to make a better product. The strategy was
to grab as much market share as they could and then try to hang on as MS
locked them out of the OEM preload market.
> I'm not saying that MS wasn't guilty of trying to squash them - what I
> am saying is that they sure helped MS do it.
Yes, they made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes, even smart guys like
Barksdale. They are unavoidable. Microsoft makes more than most. But
if you are competing with MS then you don't get the luxury of making any
mistakes at all. They have 40 billion in the bank and you don't. They
can squeeze the OEM's and the ISP's and the retailers and you can't.
See my response to Quantum Leaper for more on this.
Freeride
> If so, how is Microsoft so evil for doing the same thing KDE is doing?
> BTW, i'm not talking about simply viewing the help files, i'm talking about
> deep linking of help topics. Including bubble help/tooltips and the like.
> You know, that nifty feature of KDE to display a web page in the tooltip?
> Does that allow you to use Opera for the renderer? No? Well why not?
Eric can your remove KDE from you system and use another WM?
Freeride
You do not need IE to read chm files! You can read them with Linux also.
http://xchm.sourceforge.net/
Sinister Midget
> Jesse F. Hughes blubbered effusively on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 at 11:01 GMT:
>
>> Sinister Midget <s...@sletom002.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tom Shelton blubbered effusively on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 at 18:25 GMT:
>>>
>>>> On 2003-11-28, Sinister Midget <s...@sletom002.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (If Ewik is monitoring, either he, Milo T. Simon or both can step in at
>>>>> this point and make claims of coincidentalism taking place and causing
>>>>> this. Too bad it was documented for posterity and will cause their
>>>>> erroneous claims to be refuted quite handily. Again.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you say maybe true. But I never had it happen - and I ran N3 with
>>>> IE4 and 5 for quite some time. The only Netscape I had trouble with was
>>>> 4. I tried 6 for a couple of days - but it was so ugly that I couldn't
>>>> stand it.
>>>
>>> A lot of people claimed they had problems with 4. I didn't care for it,
>>> but I don't recall any real problems I had. 6 flat-out sucked. Yeah, it
>>> was ugly. But it was also really bloated. 7 is an improvement on
>>> several fronts. But I'm still not really fond of it.
>>
>> But this is irrelevant. You said that MS deliberately deleted
>> register entries and that this fact was "documented for posterity".
>> Can you show us any such documentation?
I marked this to rereply earlier because a quick search (running out of
time) turned up nothing.
As it turns out, a more thorough search turns up nothing as well. That
said, (let me state it loudly so the trolls can't claimit was hidden
away at a later time [which won't stop them anyway]):
I RETRACT WHAT I STATED PREVIOUSLY, AND THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
(Choose one)
1. I lied. I made the whole thing up.
2. I was mistaken. My brain manufactured all of these false memories.
3. I was mistaken about the subject, but I thought it was real, and
since I had no backing, I deliberately manufactured "memories" of
things that never happened.
4. I knew the subject to be true, but I also knew I couldn't provide
support for it. So, I manufactured "memories" of non-existant things to
tell that sounded plausible and hoped to sell them as fact.
5. I knew the subject to be true, I suspected I would still be able to
find supporting evidence, the recollection is valid, but I can't locate
anything that will back me on it.
6. I created the story out of whole cloth wrt my own experiences. But I
thought I read something along those lines several years back and
believed it to be true on at least some level. I then discovered that I
was either wrong about it happening or the evidence is too hard to
locate and don't want to be bothered with it.
IN ANY CASE, I GAVE THE SEARCH UP AFTER NOT A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT
BECAUSE IT WAS EVIDENT IT WAS GOING TO BE FRUITLESS, OR NEAR ENOUGH TO
NOT WARRANT ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY.
Love,
Sinister
--
Klez - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
John Bailo
> 4. I knew the subject to be true, but I also knew I couldn't provide
> support for it. So, I manufactured "memories" of non-existant things to
> tell that sounded plausible and hoped to sell them as fact.
>
Abductee victims often have false memories.
Michael Vester
Bob Hauck wrote:
> Well, I never used the Windows version much, but the Linux version was
> stable for more than ten minutes. It was buggy, but not unusable.
> Heck, I only got my wife to switch to Mozilla from NS 4.78 about a
> year ago.
>
Javascript code will run without crashing 4.77, it should be OK in more
recent browsers.
Netscape 4.77 is the most buggy Linux application I have ever seen.
Every few days, it will crash. And certain sites will crash it too.
So, it is a good tool for me to test web sites.
--
11:55am up 4 days, 19:52, 1 user, load average: 1.10, 1.26, 1.16
To email me, change .com to .ca Linux Counter Registration #126647
John Bailo
> Netscape 4.77 is the most buggy Linux application I have ever seen.
> Every few days, it will crash. And certain sites will crash it too.
> So, it is a good tool for me to test web sites.
>
No, it's the most buggy Windows application that was ported
to Linux that you have ever scene.
I remember contracting at m$ in 1996. I was a 'programmer
writer' first for the Internet proxy SDK group and then for
the ActiveX SDK group. My job was to write sample code
and docs for these products.
I had to meet with alot of the new Internet based groups
to find API information as it 'rolled off the press' so I
could write snippets of code and document.
I remember overhearing the engineers discussing Netscape
and saying that it was 'doing things it shouldn't' within
windows to gain speed advantages ( ie, writing below the
ring levels that it was supposed to ). At the time, (1996),
IE was *noticably* slower than Netscape and that seemed to
remain the case up until maybe IE4.
See, so NS4.77 was a super optimized Windows application
that had little respect for Windows. And why should it?
At the time, NS was riding high and the only point of the
OS seemed to be to allow people to browse the Web. And,
if you look at actually usage today, what is your bet that
more than 90 of personal computing activity today, is
web browsing?
So the question is not: what browser works best with what
OS. But what OS can offer the best platform for Web based
activities?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
then Erik's claim that
"ME and Win2000 shipped with HTML help files."
was in error, wasn't it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/yO0id90bcYOAWPYRAlXDAJ98MdH1cdFXzXM6xMOTSaQmeSj02ACgywOm
BOODXmAuLK68J+XrL1PAOnU=
=IFpb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
-- Dave Barry
paul cooke
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:42:31 GMT,
> Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>> On 2003-11-29, Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:49:46 -0600,
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:40:54 -0000, Scarletdown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:c0wuunan97oe$.d...@funkenbusch.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:18:36 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> If they're HTML, then mozilla will access them just fine, if it doesn't,
>>> then they aren't HTML, are they?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
>> shipped in a compressed binary format.
>>
>
> then Erik's claim that
>
> "ME and Win2000 shipped with HTML help files."
>
> was in error, wasn't it?
>
watch him squirm now trying to redifine exactly what he meant by html help
files...
Milo T.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:42:31 GMT,
> Tom Shelton <t...@mtogden.com> wrote:
>> On 2003-11-29, Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:49:46 -0600,
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:40:54 -0000, Scarletdown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:c0wuunan97oe$.d...@funkenbusch.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:18:36 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> If they're HTML, then mozilla will access them just fine, if it doesn't,
>>> then they aren't HTML, are they?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They are not in HTML. They are authored using HTML - but the are
>> shipped in a compressed binary format.
>>
>
> then Erik's claim that
>
> "ME and Win2000 shipped with HTML help files."
>
> was in error, wasn't it?
No, it wasn't.
"Currently there are two versions of Help available for use with Microsoft
Windows: HTML Help 1.4 and Microsoft Help 2."
HTML Help uses IE as its renderer. Help 2 uses the WinHelp app from Windows
3.0 and up.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
So it's HTML, except when it isn't..
okay...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/yT1Bd90bcYOAWPYRAqk0AJ43rLqvqYbzhS0OiRIFDZJrMuuVGgCcChv/
goKb+RTHwBsd/U2tXKfVHXM=
=4mBE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Cheer up! Things may be getting worse at a slower rate!
Peter Köhlmann
Fine. So anyone can use their favourite Browser to display that "HTML help"
then. Don't you agree, Simon, since it is "HTML"? Or is it something
special, a "MS HTML" which is incompatible with the rest of the world?
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Milo T.
You know, you could read the link and see what it is very easily.
It's compressed HTML with extra context information, indexed for searching,
tables of contents, categories, etc. It's a single file (or multiple files
linked by a directory file), with all of the images, video, sound, etc.
compiled and compressed into the file. The HTML Help engine (which uses IE
for rendering) also allows the developer to modify the design and structure
of the engine. It also provides support for popup help windows within the
context of other applications. A specific URI type is used to reference
this data, without going over the http:// or file:// transport mechanisms.
Every item in the help system has a context ID associated with it, allowing
individual applications to bring up the exact help file necessary for a
given state of that application - or a specific control which help is being
asked for.
None of which could Mozilla be used to do, without serious work. Not to
mention that it would require a STANDARDIZED API that all 3rd party
browsers supported -- which is highly unlikely to happen. Heck, even though
it's fully documented, Mozilla doesn't support ActiveX on Windows.
But of course, all of the benefits of it are pointless hacks meant to
destroy Netscape, according to common folklore. Just like Apple's Quartz
layer is designed to destroy all 3rd party PDF viewers, such as Acrobat and
Ghostscript. Or Linux's TCP/IP stack is designed to destroy 3rd party
TCP/IP stacks.