469,326 Members | 1,359 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Microsoft Hatred, FAQ

Xah Lee, 20020518

Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.

Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
right.

Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.

How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.

When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.

Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.

A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.

Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
Mac/Linux/UNIX?

A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
decisions that you liked.

Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?

A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
It's nothing like under gunpoint.

Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
applications or OSes.

A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!

Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
using their “monopoly” power to put Netscape out of business.

A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.

Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
bought out by AOL and still shit.

• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
industry shock
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html

• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html

• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet

• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html

• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_...s_netscape.zip

• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt

Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
Extend to lock out competitors.

A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
Now, lots of “standard” protocols in the industry is a result of
popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
not that they haven't.

Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.

Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.

A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
login, rsh, rlogin.)

• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_..._overflow.html

• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_.../fastfood.html

• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/

• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
technically slacking in the “security” department, but the unix
ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
to discuss.

The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
system and “philosophy” created an entire generation of incompetent
programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
history combined. See also:

• Responsible Software License:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.

A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).

e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
Playstation 2. (2002-02):
http://www4.tomshardware.com/consume...204/index.html

the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.

Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
basically at the end fucked Be up.

A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?

Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.

A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
rape the morning after.

Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.

A: •
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaign...AQ/default.htm
(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../friedman.html (The
Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
local copy

Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
do you suggest to begin with?

A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...economics.html

Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
what you say?

A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...hatredfaq.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Oct 15 '05
476 16110
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:37:35 -0700, Alan Balmer <al******@att.net>
wrote or quoted :
You've been around long enough to learn to recognize this poster and
ignore him.


Sounds like your plonk filter is on the fritz then.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #151
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.


If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right.
However, as a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to
me, and my customers.


That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a
recommendation, while files claiming to contain C++ are all
ISO-conformant, because that's a standard?

If so, you've got things precisely backwards. C++ compilers that
contain extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML
parsers that accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.


My goodness, re read that again please, and rethink what you really want
to say. I mean "claiming to contain C++". Is that like: all files
claiming to contain HTML are automatically conforming to the ISO HTML
standard?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #152
Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:42:09 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
When did Netscape executives perjure themselves in court?

When did Netscape commit fraud? Astro-turfing? Patent infringement?
Theft of code?


They got killed too soon.


Neither the Netscape executives nor Netscape the company have been
killed.


They were in one race, and they lost it.
that was then, this is now, and unlike IBM, Microsoft hasn't yet
learnt about karma.


Which is a good thing, since MS is not a human being. It's a company,
a thing to make money, so it can make more money.


Microsoft is a collection of human beings. They don't get to excuse
anti-social behaviour on the basis that they're only trying to make
money.


I see little difference with other big companies. You're right that there
is no excuse for such behaviour, but if MS isn't doing it, another company
will take their place.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #153
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 16 Oct 2005 05:22:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they
talk about W3C *recommendations*.

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs.


Yup, I know. Hence no standards.

Like I said: there is ISO HTML, and there is a w3c HTML 4.01
recommendation. The former is a standard, the latter is a defacto
standard.
For some the difference does matter.


What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
and what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
irrelevant.


So how do you develop a browser? I assume you have some experience with
programming, or is that trial and error programming? Hack until it
works?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #154
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 17 Oct 2005 03:17:16 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
Which standards? Again: w3c is not an official standards organization.


What does it take in your book for a standards organisation to be
"official" -- a Swiss head office, a room at the UN, a branch on the
US government tree?


Being recognized as one by other standards organizations? Otherwise I can
start my own tomorrow.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #155

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:86********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:36 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
By the way, this is based on the same flawed premise that a lot of
post-Y2K griping was based on. It went like this, "wow, we get all
concerned
and spent all this money on a problem that never even happened". Well,
perhaps it didn't happen because we were all concerned and spent all this
money on it.

The worry was that the work would not be completed in time. The work
had to be done or the programs would simply stop working. There was
no way to avoid the expense.


I understand why the argument is invalid. I'm presenting it as an
example of a similar invalid argument.

DS
Oct 18 '05 #156

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:ad********************************@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:36:53 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
As for it being illegal, it was illegal only because if was Microsoft
doing it. There's nothing illegal about a car dealer not selling a car
without an engine.

But that is not what was happening. It was not Microsoft selling
computers with MS OSs. MS was arm-twisting retailers like me to
bundle a copy of Windows with every sale whether the customer wanted
it or not. I think some imagine a computer is worthless without
Windows.
It is Microsoft's view that a computer is worthless without Windows.
They are fully entitled to have that view.
That gave their OS a grossly unfair price advantage.


It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.

DS
Oct 18 '05 #157
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.


Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
That obligation has nothing to do with computing - it's to make a
profit. It's MS's habit of doing things in pursuit of profit that,
while short of force, are borderline fraud, and are illegal, immoral,
unethical, bad for their business partners, bad for their customers,
bad for the industry and bad for society that causes people to
characterize them as "evil".

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 18 '05 #158
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:
Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?


Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.


MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Oct 18 '05 #159
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:43:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
I understand why the argument is invalid. I'm presenting it as an
example of a similar invalid argument.


Not every post is meant to contradict or inform the OP.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #160
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:44:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.


I think that what they did borders on force/fraud.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #161

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:8b********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:44:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or
fraud.

I think that what they did borders on force/fraud.


I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their
obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders
on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud. However, the use of things
too close to force/fraud often backfires. Microsoft has an obligation to be
strategic and look nice where those things beneficially impact the bottom
line.

It's Bill Gates' job to make his company worth as much as possible.

DS
Oct 18 '05 #162

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

> Yup, but ISO C++ is a standard, and XML is a recommendation.

And the practical difference between the two is....

That's right, nil.

If you both read them as a collection of words, you're right.
However, as a
(freelance) programmer, things like this *do* make a difference to
me, and my customers.


That is, you assume that files claiming to contain XML documents may
actually contain some variant of XML, because that's only a
recommendation, while files claiming to contain C++ are all
ISO-conformant, because that's a standard?

If so, you've got things precisely backwards. C++ compilers that
contain extensions or are not quite compliant are everywhere. XML
parsers that accept non-well-formed XML are, ASFAIK, non-existent.


My goodness, re read that again please, and rethink what you really want
to say. I mean "claiming to contain C++". Is that like: all files
claiming to contain HTML are automatically conforming to the ISO HTML
standard?


You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be
observed, so what is the reason?
Oct 18 '05 #163

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.


Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.


Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free), that's
not a feasible goal.
..
Oct 18 '05 #164

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On 16 Oct 2005 05:22:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

>No, it's a recommendation, an advise, nothing else. Otherwise they
>would call it a standard. Why do you think W3C calls it
>recommendations? Because it are no standards. There is an ISO HTML
>standard though, but when people babble about HTML standards they
>talk about W3C *recommendations*.

What do you think the Internet is based on? RFCs.

Yup, I know. Hence no standards.

Like I said: there is ISO HTML, and there is a w3c HTML 4.01
recommendation. The former is a standard, the latter is a defacto
standard.
For some the difference does matter.


What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
and what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
irrelevant.


So how do you develop a browser? I assume you have some experience with
programming, or is that trial and error programming? Hack until it
works?


A browser that's perfectly compliant but can't render the pages actually
found would be of only academic interest. So, yes, the standards (and
recommendations) are one source of requirements, but the actual contents of
the internet is another.
Oct 18 '05 #165
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
[ w3c "standard" v.s. ISO ]
You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be
observed, so what is the reason?


That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #166
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both irrelevant.

Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.

Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free), that's
not a feasible goal.


I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.

Since a compliant browser has hooks that let users change their
behavior, well-written HTML will degrade gracefully in the face of a
browser that's had features turned off or had their behavior
changed. Dealing with browser bugs isnt any harder than that.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 18 '05 #167
On 18 Oct 2005 06:20:56 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.


Because ... what are the consequences?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #168
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their
obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders
on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud.


I avoid MS products whenever possible. Surely others feel the same
way because we have had it up to the teeth with MS dirty tactics. That
has to be factored into profitability as well.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #169
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 06:20:56 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.


Because ... what are the consequences?


If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #170
In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Steiner <rs******@visi.com> wrote:
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:
Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?


Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.

MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.


We were talking sunOS. At least I was!

Peter
Oct 18 '05 #171
On 18 Oct 2005 06:57:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.


Because ... what are the consequences?


If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.


No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 18 '05 #172
John Bokma wrote:
[snip]

I see little difference with other big companies. You're right that there
is no excuse for such behaviour, but if MS isn't doing it, another company
will take their place.


And if companies are allowed to behave this way (because of your
'nice,fatalistic' argument), this will never change.
Showing companies that you don't excuse such behavior would include not
buying there products, using other products, whatever. To say that they
are just playing the evil part that somebody *has* to play, is to excuse
their behavior, IMO.

++ Eike
Oct 18 '05 #173

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
and
what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
irrelevant.
Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.

Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free), that's
not a feasible goal.


I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.


I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.

When we've had similar issues with C++ compilers, patches have usually been
forthcoming, or perhaps optimization has to be turned off on a few source
files. In a few areas, though, the solution has been "Don't do that", and
again, the fact that the standard supports it is irrelevant.

Oct 18 '05 #174
Richard Steiner <rs******@visi.com> wrote:
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:
Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?


Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.


MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.


You snipped the bits that provide the context showing that here Peter and I
were talking about versions of SunOS, not MS-DOS.

I too don't recall an MS-DOS 3.4. The Victor/Sirius version I mentioned
was definitely 3.10 (three point ten)--the version byte was hex 030A.
Perhaps the gap in sequencing was introduced to separate the versions
for IBM-compatible machines from the versions for non-IBM-compatible
machines.

--
John Wingate Mathematics is the art which teaches
jo****@worldpath.net one how not to make calculations.
--Oscar Chisini
Oct 18 '05 #175
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
> What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
> and
> what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
> irrelevant.
Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.
Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free), that's
not a feasible goal.

I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.

I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.


Been there, done that, threw out the T-shirt as to ugly to wear.

Yes, you have to work around bugs in the popular browsers. That hasn't
changed since the first published specs showed up. That doesn't mean
you throw out the standards and only support a trivial set of
browsers. That means you restrict yourself to a subset of the
standard, or - better - detect the deficiency and fail soft, the same
as you would do when you get a visit from someone who's disabled some
feature you want to use. In extreme cases, you wind up implementing
something twice: once for busted-but-popular browsers, and once for
people using browsers written by developers who read specifications.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 18 '05 #176
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 05:32, Richard Steiner stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:
Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?


Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.


MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I
don't recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.


There ws indeed a version 3.4, but I don't know whether this was
MS-DOS. IBM did have a PC-DOS 3.4 at one stage, where it offered the
purchaser of the PS/2 series computers the choice between DOS 3.4 and
DOS 4.00.

However, Peter was of course not talking of DOS. ;-)

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
Oct 18 '05 #177
Michael Heiming wrote:
Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!


No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he was.

--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Doub...ood/index.html
Oct 18 '05 #178
joe
"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> writes:
Michael Heiming wrote:
Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!


No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he
was.


Well, what he said was

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

What you say he did is what he actually did, but what he said gives a
different impression. I don't think he's careless or stupid, so I
think he said that in order to create the impression in the minds of
the people listening to the interview that he's responsible for the
internet.

That's just what politicians do, regardless of party affiliation.

joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Oct 18 '05 #179

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:iv********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their
obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign that borders
on force/fraud so long as it isn't force/fraud.

I avoid MS products whenever possible. Surely others feel the same
way because we have had it up to the teeth with MS dirty tactics. That
has to be factored into profitability as well.


Definitely. Sometimes you have to make nice if you want to make money.

I have no complaints with people who choose to avoid a particular
company's products because they don't like that company's tactics. And I
have no problem with them spreading their views and sharing their beliefs.

Heck, I work for a company that probably has made quite a few sales
because people were looking for a product by "anyone but Microsoft".

That said, I do agree there were some "dirty tactics" in the sense that
they were pure hardball and could have resulted in inferior products getting
greater market share. However, I don't think they came anywhere near force
or fraud, with very few exceptions.

Notable exceptions included cases where Microsoft told companies they
had no intention of releasing a competing product to get technical details
and later turned around and released competing products or cases where
Microsoft threatened legal action they knew they had no chance of winning at
a fair hearing. These did border on force/fraud and in some cases, Microsoft
did get spanked for these tactics.

DS
Oct 18 '05 #180
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 06:57:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML
recommendation by w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things,
and mixing them up by calling both standards is a bad thing.

Because ... what are the consequences?


If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.


No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.


ISO HTML and HTML 4.01 differ. If you were asked to write a validating
parser for the HTML standard, (as in ISO), and you wrote one for HTML 4.01
(as in recommendation), you made quite a mistake.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #181
Eike Preuss <ma**@eikepreuss.de> wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
[snip]

I see little difference with other big companies. You're right that
there is no excuse for such behaviour, but if MS isn't doing it,
another company will take their place.


And if companies are allowed to behave this way (because of your
'nice,fatalistic' argument), this will never change.
Showing companies that you don't excuse such behavior would include
not buying there products, using other products, whatever. To say that
they are just playing the evil part that somebody *has* to play, is to
excuse their behavior, IMO.


If you think you can direct the development of human behaviour by not
buying a Microsoft product, be my guest. I rather waste my time on other
things. I think your "this will never change" is wrong, but it certainly
will not change in my lifetime, and I doubt if this kind of human behaviour
is going to change in many centuries to come.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #182
jo*@invalid.address wrote:
"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> writes:

Michael Heiming wrote:
Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!


No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he
was.

Well, what he said was

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."

What you say he did is what he actually did, but what he said gives a
different impression. I don't think he's careless or stupid, so I
think he said that in order to create the impression in the minds of
the people listening to the interview that he's responsible for the
internet.


For "the Internet" as 99% of the American people comprehend it, he /was/
largely responsible, on the political end. The fact that the
"Information Superhighway" turned out to be implemented as a massive
explosion of the former ARPANet was an unforeseeable accident of
history, resulting from the coincidental timing of the "Information
Superhighway" initiative, the introduction of the Web, and (to some
degree) the ARPANet worm.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as nave as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)
Oct 18 '05 #183
joe
"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> writes:
jo*@invalid.address wrote:
"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> writes:
Michael Heiming wrote:

Let's not forget about the Internet, they invented together with
Al Gore and of course the wheel!

No fair picking on Al Gore. All he ever claimed was that he was the
Congressional point man for the "Information Superhighway", which he
was.

Well, what he said was
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
What you say he did is what he actually did, but what he said gives a
different impression. I don't think he's careless or stupid, so I
think he said that in order to create the impression in the minds of
the people listening to the interview that he's responsible for the
internet.


For "the Internet" as 99% of the American people comprehend it, he
/was/ largely responsible, on the political end. The fact that the
"Information Superhighway" turned out to be implemented as a massive
explosion of the former ARPANet was an unforeseeable accident of
history, resulting from the coincidental timing of the "Information
Superhighway" initiative, the introduction of the Web, and (to some
degree) the ARPANet worm.


This was said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer in 1999. By that
time the Internet was quite a bit more than ARPANet, and my guess is
that 99% of the American people thought of it as it was in 1999. His
comment created the impression that he was responsible for what
existed then.

Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a
false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false
impression, there would not have been any jokes about him. If all he
said was what he actually did, this would never have been an issue.

Joe
--
Gort, klatu barada nikto
Oct 18 '05 #184
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Steiner <rs******@visi.com> wrote:
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:
Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?

Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.
MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.
We were talking sunOS. At least I was!


Sure, but someone mentioned doze, so people can jump onto the
bandwagon. ;-)

Honestly, even in colm it gets difficult to find a thread not
mentioning doze in one or another way. Linux desktop market share
seems to raise, slow but continuously. Unimportant if someone
likes it or not, it just happens.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zv*****@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 8: static buildup
Oct 18 '05 #185
Mike Meyer wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or fraud.

Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.


If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Oct 18 '05 #186
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
And were later forced to rescind. The judge who wrote that opinion is well
known for his anti-Microsoft activism.


That's an outright lie.

--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Doub...ood/index.html
Oct 18 '05 #187

"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Or*******************@fe10.lga...
Mike Meyer wrote:

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
It is not Microsoft's obligation to be "fair". It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's products at the center, using anything short of force or
fraud.

Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.


If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

DS
Oct 18 '05 #188
Rhino wrote:
"John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4m*******************@fe10.lga...
Rhino wrote:
Everyone
else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in
those
days - for their business needs.


Oh dear, no. Not quite. There were, going back decades, machines that
used punched cards, relays, stepper wheels, and punched cards. It was
/that/ that was the foundation of IBM's business, and IBM had an
effective monopoly. This was not altogether due to evil; their one
competitor, Remington Rand, made machines that were slightly better, but
had to be factory-programmed, whereas IBM's machines used panels full of
jumper wires, and the panels themselves could be swapped, so that you
could have a "program library" of prewired panels. Which would /you/ buy?

Remington Rand made a similar mistake with computers. They wouldn't give
you a programming manual until you contracted to buy the bloody thing.
IBM pulled ahead of them during the year when Univac computers were real
and IBM computers weren't, and they never looked back.


Sorry, my mistake. I knew that IBM had collators and such things back in
those days but I didn't know what percentage of their business they
comprised. I used to work with a long-time IBMer who had started out in
marketing in the 60s or so and I got the impression from him that
typewriters were still the bulk of IBM's business. Perhaps he was just in
that division and didn't know the "big picture".


Typewriters may, for all I know to the contrary, have been their main
source of profit. But it wasn't what IBM was /about/. They got into the
typewriter business by buying up a failing company.

IBM also made master/slave clock systems for schools and factories,
including tower clocks (the IBM website has some fascinating archive
material). They made dictation systems. They even made scales for
butchers. But the heart of the business was punched cards, and one of
the main reasons they became the leaders in the computer field is that
computers were a natural extension of what they were already doing.

--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Oct 18 '05 #189

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message


[ w3c "standard" v.s. ISO ]
You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be
observed, so what is the reason?


That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.


Sorry, that's non-responsive.

Now, once more, why are standards" *more valuable* than "recommendations"?
Oct 18 '05 #190

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 06:57:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
>That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML
>recommendation by w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things,
>and mixing them up by calling both standards is a bad thing.

Because ... what are the consequences?

If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.


No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.


ISO HTML and HTML 4.01 differ. If you were asked to write a validating
parser for the HTML standard, (as in ISO), and you wrote one for HTML 4.01
(as in recommendation), you made quite a mistake.


There are standards that conflict, and also recommendations that conflict.
Why is confusing standard A with recommendation P worse than

1. confusing standard A with standard B, or
2. confusing recommendation P with recommendation Q
Oct 18 '05 #191

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
> "Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
>> What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
>> and
>> what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
>> irrelevant.
> Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.
Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free),
that's
not a feasible goal.
I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.

I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been
dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.


Been there, done that, threw out the T-shirt as to ugly to wear.

Yes, you have to work around bugs in the popular browsers. That hasn't
changed since the first published specs showed up. That doesn't mean
you throw out the standards and only support a trivial set of
browsers.


If you're working on a commercial product, it means you support IE (possibly
being able to insist on a specific patch level), Foxfire if you can, and
ignore the < 1% of the market that won't live with those restrictions.
Oct 18 '05 #192
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 06:57:47 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :

>>That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML
>>recommendation by w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things,
>>and mixing them up by calling both standards is a bad thing.
>
> Because ... what are the consequences?

If you mean if you are put in jail for 20 years, and tortured, none.

No. ANY consequences. You have not explained the downside.


ISO HTML and HTML 4.01 differ. If you were asked to write a
validating parser for the HTML standard, (as in ISO), and you wrote
one for HTML 4.01 (as in recommendation), you made quite a mistake.


There are standards that conflict, and also recommendations that
conflict. Why is confusing standard A with recommendation P worse than

1. confusing standard A with standard B, or
2. confusing recommendation P with recommendation Q


Calling a recommendation a standard might confuse it with the actual ISO
standard. Imagine one buys a validating parser that states "SUPPORTS ALL
STANDARDS", and they actually meant it supports all w3c recommendations.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #193
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now, once more, why are standards" *more valuable* than
"recommendations"?


standards are written by internationally recognized independent
organisations, v.s. everyone can write a recommendation. For you, and
others this doesn't matter, for others it does. Why do you think Microsoft
made part of .NET a standard? They could perfectly write up recommendations
on .NET themselves, written drafts, or RFCs and leave it at that.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #194
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
> news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
>> "Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> What matters in generating HTML is which browsers you want to support
>>> and
>>> what they understand. Standards and recommendations are both
>>> irrelevant.
>> Unless, of course, you want to support any compliant browser.
> Since no browser I know of is perfectly compliant (e.g. bug-free),
> that's
> not a feasible goal.
I guess you'd say developing any software isn't a feasible goal,
because it'll never be bug-free, will never have bug-free compilers to
compile it, bug-free linkers to link it, bug-free GUI/db/etc libraries
to link with it, bug-free servers to communicate with, and bug-free
operating systems to run it on. Fortunately, most developers aren't
quite that anal, and realize that you can get useful work done in a
less-than-perfect environment.
I'm not speaking theroetically. My company (though not me personally)
creates browser-based UIs, and one of the biggest expenses has been
dealing
with IE rendering bugs Given the market share of IE, the fact that
something should work, and even does work in Firefox, Opera, etc, is
irrelevant. If it breaks IE, we can't use it.

Been there, done that, threw out the T-shirt as to ugly to wear.
Yes, you have to work around bugs in the popular browsers. That hasn't
changed since the first published specs showed up. That doesn't mean
you throw out the standards and only support a trivial set of
browsers.

If you're working on a commercial product, it means you support IE (possibly
being able to insist on a specific patch level), Foxfire if you can, and
ignore the < 1% of the market that won't live with those restrictions.


Just because you do things some way doesn't mean that's the only way
to do them, or even the right way to do them.

That's one way to do it. Didn't used to be, because the players have
changed. Which is part of the cost of doing it that way - your
targets change as the publics taste changes. It only works for a
specific market (though it's a very big one); should you decide to
expand into another market, you'll find your targets have changed
again.

One alternative, as I've said, is to write to the standards, and then
work around bugs in the popular browsers. If the public whim changes
which browser is most popular - it only has minimal impact on
you. Should you decide to move into a different market, your existing
development process works with only minor changes.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 18 '05 #195

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn************************@130.133.1.4...
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now, once more, why are standards" *more valuable* than
"recommendations"?


standards are written by internationally recognized independent
organisations, v.s. everyone can write a recommendation. For you, and
others this doesn't matter, for others it does. Why do you think Microsoft
made part of .NET a standard?


Marketing. It lets them claim that .NET is open and Java is proprietary.
SOAP, which is also part of their "open" story, is a recommendation.

Oct 18 '05 #196

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
One alternative, as I've said, is to write to the standards, and then
work around bugs in the popular browsers. If the public whim changes
which browser is most popular -
I am not holding my breath.
it only has minimal impact on
you. Should you decide to move into a different market, your existing
development process works with only minor changes.

Oct 18 '05 #197
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
One alternative, as I've said, is to write to the standards, and then
work around bugs in the popular browsers. If the public whim changes
which browser is most popular -

I am not holding my breath.


Neither did the people who coded for Mosaic, then Netscape.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 18 '05 #198
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.


If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

DS

When you are repeating a fact with as much psychological research
supporting it as that one, it isn't necessary to justify it, any more than
it would be necessary to justify a statement like "parents love their
children". It isn't John Kennedy's fault that you aren't up to date.

Both statements are generalisations, it is true, and both are probably
true about the same percentage of time.

Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths, a much higher percentage of
"go-getters" like company CEOs, generals, politicians, executives, etc.
Very few of them chop people up into small pieces and bury them in the
wall cavities of their house.

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish vicious
brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others. Or rather,
to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring about the harm done
by your corporate machinery is not a crime. Actually doing that harm is,
or at least should be, although sadly when we allow the psychopaths to
make the rules, they tend to make rules that allow themselves to prosper
at our expense.
--
Steven.

Oct 18 '05 #199
Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths,
psychopaths according to DSM IV, or just some silly test from a magazine?
With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish
Yup, like everybody can become an olympic swimmer, or get a degree. Just
work, and you'll make it.
Actually doing that harm is, or at least should be, although sadly
when we allow the psychopaths to make the rules, they tend to make
rules that allow themselves to prosper at our expense.


Hmmmm... and probably one in three is paranoid?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 18 '05 #200

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.