 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
> to the casual user than IE already is - at least, enough to make them
> reach into their pockets anyway...
And part of that is how much everyone commoditizes the browser.
Don't complain that everyone has to follow the exact same standards and
render everything pixel-perfect identical, and then complain it's difficult
to differentiate your product enough to sell it.
> If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met anybody
> who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
Yes you have. I own *two* copies of paintshop. You bastard - I wondered why
they started adding DRM to the install.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually... I'm not aware of anything else that does what Exchange
>> does. Which is a little bit odd, really.
>
> There ya go.
I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd that
nobody has made one.
>> I know of a few office suites that manage to not constantly crash like
>> MS Office does.
>
> > Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS
>
> Only in the broad sense that UNIX does the same thing as Windows. They
> really aren't comparable.
So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then? (Aside from giving root
access to anybody who types their URLs with backslashes instead of
forward slashes...)
>> There are lots of database engines out there; I doubt many of them are
>> worse than SQL Server.
>
> You haven't tried MySql then.
OK, so *some* of them are worse. ;-)
> It sounds more like "I don't know the capabilities of Microsoft systems,
> so I listen to what Linux enthusiasts tell me about it." :-)
What makes you think it's the Linux enthusiasts? I hated M$ long before
anybody had even heard of Linus Travolds... And I don't buy it when
people say Linux is the answer. It's too messy and laden with backwards
compatibility...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called
> Spyglass.
You need to stop listening to whoever tells you this crap. "We bought your
code" isn't "we stole your code." Similarly, "we paid everyone in your
company huge amounts of money to come work for us" isn't "we drove you out
of business."
> Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them,
> developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the terms
> of the licence with Spyglass).
Why do you think it was in violation of the terms of the contract?
> A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but
> since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.
Heh heh.
> Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions.
No. The real main problem is the number of people unwilling to continue to
use the standards that were settled and widespread when IE6 was around. IE6
breaks some stuff, but it works fine if you're not trying to do
sophisticated layout crap the web was never designed for. If your site works
in Navigator 4, it'll work in IE6.
>>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>>
>> They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
>> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
>
> The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or
> you can't have our product".
Who do you listen to?
> Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people
> aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get
> government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no".
I'm sorry?? What era of history are you living in? Have you heard of AIG?
Perhaps GM?
> Microsoft made their money from Windows. They can afford to give
> products away with it for free. People who's entire business is selling
> those other products can't do this. It's using sales from one product to
> pay for another product; last time I checked, that's not legal.
Only if you properly distinguish "products". Some companies sell car
stereos. When cars started coming with nice stereos, those companies went
out of business.
Who is to say a web browser isn't part of the OS but a graphical file
browser is? Who would have guessed that a program to play MP3s would be
illegal to include with an operating system?
> Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book with
> every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using grocery
> sales to put book sellers out of business.
Sure. And when Microsoft starts giving away groceries and paying for it with
the OS, then you can make that argument. But first you have to tell me the
objective criteria by which a media player or a web browser aren't part of
the OS, but a text editor or file browser is.
> Well, that's fair enough. But when a business announces something they
> have no intention of making just for the financial effect it will have
> on a potential competetor... that's not really fair.
Cite? Or is this another "story you heard"?
> I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this is
> true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation where
> little viable alternative actually exists.
Operating systems are a natural monopoly.
>> Why don't you use Linux instead?
>
> Sure. Except that the vast majority of the software I want to use won't
> work with Linux.
That's because operating systems are a natural monopoly.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Tesco might sell petrol at a loss, but they don't give it away *for
> free* to get you through the door, do they?
What makes you think IE is free? You keep saying this, but you don't give
any evidence for it.
Tell me, please list the parts of the code that come with Windows that are
free, vs the parts that are "too expensive"?
>>> Oracle didn't get to be where they are now by stealing other people's
>>> stuff,
>>
>> Oh really:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Oracle
>
> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
So, when Microsoft buys a license for PC-DOS or Spyglass, it's stealing, but
when Oracle does, it isn't stealing?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 10:47, Darren New wrote:
>> Midnight Commander on Linux.
>
> I have yet to try this out. I open a shell window and maximize it when I
> use Linux. Indeed, I giggle uncontrollably every time someone at work
> tries to help me and opens up a Gnome file browser to look for something.
I hiss and cuss at any Linux machine I'm on that doesn't have mc. Often
people either stop asking me for help or just install mc so that they
can be helped. Unintended effect, I assure you.<G>
> I grant that VIM doesn't suck. :-)
It sucks on the beep-o-meter scale.
--
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The way I heard it was that Gates got some code off a mate and then
> decided to sell it for money, pretending it was his own.
Where did you hear it? Hint: don't trust that source.
Nobody goes "Gee, I happen to have an OS for a new CPU. Want a copy of the
source and all the development notes?"
> At work, I use two web-based applications which actually don't work
> without IE.
There's a tremendous difference between using a browser as a smart terminal
for a limited application, and browsing the general public web.
Know what? I can dial 3 digits at work and get any other phone in the
office, too. But that only works on my office phone.
>> So, first you complain that MS sucks, then you admit that everyone
>> else sucks worse.
>
> No, I said M$ has carefully arranged it so that you don't have much
> choice. They deliberately stop people from making better products.
Give an actual cite with some actual data, rather than just pulling stories
out of your butt. :-)
> I wouldn't mind if M$ was top dog because they actually made the best
> products, but that's simply not true.
So, nobody makes any better products, but MS doesn't make the best?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd that
> nobody has made one.
It's only odd because what Exchange does is inherently difficult to do well.
Who is going to write such a thing, and try to compete with Exchange? It's
not cool enough for random Linux enthusiasts to write from scratch, any more
than OpenOffice was.
> So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then?
Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different processing
module method. Interesting deployment options where you don't have to roll
your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
> (Aside from giving root
> access to anybody who types their URLs with backslashes instead of
> forward slashes...)
Cite?
> OK, so *some* of them are worse. ;-)
Most of them are worse for *developers*, for one thing.
>> It sounds more like "I don't know the capabilities of Microsoft
>> systems, so I listen to what Linux enthusiasts tell me about it." :-)
>
> What makes you think it's the Linux enthusiasts? I hated M$ long before
> anybody had even heard of Linus Travolds... And I don't buy it when
> people say Linux is the answer. It's too messy and laden with backwards
> compatibility...
OK, so who is telling you these things? You keep saying things that ought to
be easy to support, but attributing them to "some guy told me"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd
>> that nobody has made one.
>
> It's only odd because what Exchange does is inherently difficult to do
> well. Who is going to write such a thing, and try to compete with
> Exchange? It's not cool enough for random Linux enthusiasts to write
> from scratch, any more than OpenOffice was.
What Exchange does is store your mailbox in a central database rather
than locally on your PC. That's pretty trivial.
OTOH, I'll grant that it's not very "shiny", so that's probably why
nobody else has done it...
>> So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then?
>
> Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different
> processing module method. Interesting deployment options where you don't
> have to roll your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
None of that made any sense to me, but hey...
>> (Aside from giving root access to anybody who types their URLs with
>> backslashes instead of forward slashes...)
>
> Cite?
I *think* this is the correct one:
https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/HTTP:IIS:ASP-DOT-NET-BACKSLASH.html
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
>> to the casual user than IE already is - at least, enough to make them
>> reach into their pockets anyway...
>
> And part of that is how much everyone commoditizes the browser.
>
> Don't complain that everyone has to follow the exact same standards and
> render everything pixel-perfect identical, and then complain it's
> difficult to differentiate your product enough to sell it.
There are plenty of things a browser can do differently - it's just that
the casual user isn't going to *care* about such things. (E.g., if there
was a browser that had more reliable printing capabilities, would *you*
pay money to use it?)
>> If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met
>> anybody who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
>
> Yes you have. I own *two* copies of paintshop. You bastard - I wondered
> why they started adding DRM to the install.
Don't look at me - I've never owned a copy of either of those things. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm pretty sure that one was Kerberos. And the point was they made it
>> so their Kerberos implementation wouldn't work with anybody else's.
>
> But the standard allowed for that, is my point. Why have a "reserved for
> use by vendors" field if you're going to break when vendors use it.
>
> It wasn't "reserved for future use" as I understand it. It was "reserved
> for relaying hidden information we failed to account for in the standard
> that your OS needs".
OK, well that would make the situation rather different...
>>> What other standards have they done this with.
>>
>> *cough* The web?
>
> Sorry? In what sense? That the web browser doesn't follow standards set
> after the browser was written doesn't really mean they intentionally
> broke the web.
If I'm not mistaken, HTML was a standard long before M$ started adding
nonportable attributes and entities.
> People are *still* complaining about it, tho. Google is suing Microsoft
> for bundling IE right now. The EU is suing MS for bundling Media Player,
> in spite of every other operating system coming with the manufacturers
> media player and in spite of there being half a dozen highly capable
> free media players available.
OK, that doesn't make a lot of sense, no...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
