Re: Herbert, Herbert, wherefore art thou Herbert ?

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 11/30/04 

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:28:02 GMT

hutch wrote:
> Annie wrote:
> > Or need I remind you about the "warning" that was
> > built into WinDoze 3.1x to falsely scare users, if
> > WinDoze detected that it was running under anything
> > other than M$'s own brand of DOS? Again, the courts
> > found this to be a no-no, and ordered Mikro$loth
> > to pay multi-millions of dollars to the owners of
> > DR-DOS.
>
> It did not help that at times, Windows ran like a bag of sh*t if it
> was strapped onto much else where at least with the ms-dos memory
> management, it worked fine ALL THE TIME.

Perhaps...but, if so, this could be because Windows was a bag of sh*t and
depended on having a poor code base in a broken DOS to function properly...

Oh, this little "trick" of actually making the competition look worse by
_Microsoft themselves_ coding things badly has done Microsoft proud over
the years...

For example, the Microsoft implementation of the PNG image format in the PC
version of IE? Broken...the alpha transparency doesn't work and displays a
grey background behind the image, totally ruining the entire point of the
"alpha" effect...rendering it useless...

If you totally abandon any pretence to make your HTML code "compatible"
across a range of browsers, then you can - Microsoft's suggested "work
around" - use the completely proprietary "DirectX filters"...as the fact
that these are being supplied by DirectX should immediately tell you, this
stuff is completely "Windows-specific"...

Okay, so Microsoft have screwed things up, what else is new? Ah, but
consider the web developer's angle:

1. Ignore "compatibility", use the "DirectX filters" to get the
transparency effects working well...the site is "Windows IE only" but, on
that platform, you get the transparency effects as desired...

2. In the interests of "compatibility" because Windows IE can't do the
transparency effects properly, you "downgrade" your website so that it uses
simpler standards...it doesn't look as good but it works on all browsers...

3. You decide that if IE is going to be broken, then you'll just have to
exclude IE...you use PNG transparency as it's always supposed to have
worked...this works fine in all browsers but appears totally screwed up in
IE...

Right, remembering that it is Microsoft's Windows IE that is the _BROKEN_
piece of software, review the consequences in terms of a user firing up
their IE browser (due to Microsoft's monopoly and "bundling" tactics, this
is the browser most people will be using) to point it at the website...

1. The "IE only" site appears to work perfectly and has the fantastic PNG
effects working properly...the user viewing the page sees the impressive
effects and thinks "Wow! Microsoft use all the best technology...because
this is the best webpage I've seen that works properly and it's 'IE only'
so it must be doing things other browsers are not capable of doing"...

2. The "compatible with all browsers" site works but had to abandon the
"special effects" completely to be able to do so...sticking with older
standards, "playing it safe" with simple content...it works but it looks
crap...the user thinks: "Oh, in order to make it work on those other crappy
non-Microsoft browsers, they've had to make the site worse and it looks
crap...those other browsers must be very crap next to IE"...

3. The "screw IE" site, of course, works brilliantly on all other browsers
except IE...but the IE user doesn't know that...when they fire up the site
in their IE browser, they see _Microsoft's_ screwed up buggy interpretation
of PNG and get all the grey background ugliness...they think "oh my gosh,
this site doesn't even work properly...it's not just crap looking, it's
totally broken...what's that ugly mess in the middle of the page? If this
is the best 'other browsers' can do, then I'm glad I've got IE because
those others are terrible and don't work properly at all"...

Again, this is the impression the poor, naive impressionable Windows / IE
user gets from viewing these three kinds of site...and what they are
_seeing_ is easily attributed as being the fault of _other browsers_, not
IE...indeed, the "IE only" site seems to work brilliantly and the "not for
IE" site looks like a totally broken mess...

This type of user is not savvy enough to realise that things are, in fact,
_BACKWARDS_ there...that the "not for IE" site actually is the best one of
the lot because, when not used with buggy IE (where the problem _actually_
resides), it comes up looking perfect and does so without a single
proprietary hack or any deviation from any standards...and that "compatible
for all browsers" site had to "downgrade" to older standards and be a
little "crap looking" in comparison because of _IE's buggy implementation_,
not because the other browsers could not handle it...and the "IE only" site
is only working because it's full of proprietary hacks and is completely
non-standard...

But when you view the world through Windows IE, you get a false
picture...what you see - "seeing is believing" and all that actually
inaccurate nonsense - suggests to you that IE is the "best technology"
(backed up by Microsoft simply lying in all their adverts to say "this is
the best technology" over and over to re-inforce the self-delusion in
what's actually an "optical illusion") and it is other browsers which are
"broken" with regard to things like PNG...

It's like having one of those fairground distorted "funny" mirrors to do
your make-up (okay, you don't do make-up...then you're trying to style your
hair with hair gel or something like that instead ;)...in the mirror, all
looks well...but because that mirror is _distorted_, you actually march on
out looking like a drunken circus clown (or with the hair, you've
unintentionally created a new hybrid "Einstein meets 'Something about Mary'
first thing in the morning" style ;) without even realising it...if the
lens through which you look at the world is distorted and wrong, then what
you're seeing isn't actually quite what's really there...somewhat a
disaster when the majority out there tend to blindly follow "seeing is
believing" and so long as the mirror lies to them, they'll NEVER question
it..."mirror, mirror on the wall", indeed, eh? ;)

[ Note to Annie: Don't be predictable...yes, yes...we can hear the "Beth
the circus clown" insults already...don't be so obvious and tired in
actually saying them out loud and only confirming just how miserably
pathetic and bitter you really are :) ]

What's interesting - and why I referred to it as "Windows IE" all the way
through, not just IE in general - is the suspiciously strange fact that the
_Mac_ version of IE doesn't have this "bug" in it...no, no...the Mac
version of IE, in fact, has the best PNG support of all...yeah, it's such a
good implementation that the PNG group actually point to _Mac_ IE as the
"role model"...it has _ALL_ the features which not all other browsers
support like "gamma correction"...

Which, in the context, is highly, highly suspect, isn't it? Microsoft use C
/ C++ so, to a degree, why can't they just use the Mac IE source code to
make the Windows IE implementation work? The rendering part might be
different but the "decoding" and other such things should be perfectly
portable "as is"...

As they have simultaneously the worst and best PNG support with IE on
different platforms...well, what is going on there exactly?

What possible reason could Microsoft have for devoting _more effort_ in
supporting the Mac version of IE (used by a small handful) and getting it
right...while they just don't bother with _THEIR OWN PLATFORM_, one of
their flagship product running on top of _THE_ flagship product? A browser
version that isn't for a "small handful" but for the largest majority of
users that any browser that exists supports...

And it's not just that Windows IE has this suspicious "bug" (which - lo and
behold - has the "work around" of making your website "IE-specific" with
_proprietary_ "DirectX filters" and other non-standards that only work for
Windows IE) while the Mac version works just fine - from the same company
that what's stopping them _sharing code_ or getting the Mac IE developers
to come over and teach the Windows IE developers where they are going wrong
(indeed, Mac IE has the _best_ "role model" implementation that PNG
themselves recommend...they do appear to be the "experts" in how to get it
working) - but we really have to ask why the Mac version _implements all
features_ (such as "gamma correction") while the Windows version doesn't
(and can't even get the alpha transparency feature to work at all without
"DirectX filters")...

Now, that is greatly suspicious...what economic and practical reason would
there be to put the full effort for _all features_ into the Mac version of
IE (a small handful of users) while the Windows IE isn't bothering to
support the most basic features in a functional way (the most used browser
for the biggest OS, that owns 90+% of the entire computing "market"
single-handedly)?

Why, when Microsoft claim the transparency problem is just a "bug", have
they done nothing to rectify it? When, from the same company, the "role
model" implementation (in C / C++ source code that a healthy chunk should
be "portable") is sitting opposite...when that "role model" implementation,
even though for a small "niche" market in comparison to the biggest market
that exists on the planet, has almost _ALL_ the features supported while
the version for their own flagship OS doesn't work at all?

Of course, though none of this is in the slightest bit logical unless
Microsoft are doing it _DELIBRATELY_, so long as they say "no, no...a pure
accident" then you can't prove it...but logic screams the answer: PNG is an
"open source" open standard...something Microsoft can't "control"...a
potential "threat"...probably from the same "geeks" who work on Linux
kernel hacking otherwise...

One word (Microsoft's own): "De-commoditisation"...

Knowing they have the "monopoly" on Windows then the IE implementation is
_delibrately_ broken so that web developers are forced (because, like it or
not, Windows IE has the _numbers_ and if you want the widest audience to
view your website, you've got to make it work for Win/IE) to simply choose
not to use PNG...users get the impression that IE is "the best technology"
from this (because only those who code "IE only" sites - which typically
have a big badge announcing with pride that they only work on IE - and
abandon any audience besides IE can think of using PNG on their sites)...

And Microsoft are laughing because they _put_ the "bug" into Windows IE
solely to destroy their competition, while actually re-inforcing -
ironically - the false perception amongst users that IE is "the best"...the
fact that it's broken won't effect their sales in any way and they know it
100%..."I'm #1...why try harder?", as is written on the T-shirt of the
front cover of Fatboy Slim's album (outside the US, anyway...long
story...the cover legally had to be different in America)...

And the Mac version being the "near perfect" role model implementation that
copes with almost all features of PNG? Simple...Microsoft have no
"monopoly" on the Mac...so they face "competition" and that makes them
_TRY_, for once...to get Mac users to even look at Microsoft browsers on
that platform, it actually _MUST_ be good, competitive
software...demonstrating that if Microsoft weren't in a "monopoly" on the
PC, then this would be the standard - an acceptable, reasonable, good
standard - they'd be forced to work to, _at all times_...to produce "role
model" implementations...be exact to the standards that PNG themselves
point people to this version because Microsoft, basically, pulled out all
the effort possible to make the Mac/IE version as _perfect_ as they
possibly could...

And this standard could be _normal_ for Microsoft on the PC too, if only
"monopoly" wasn't there and they were forced to _COMPETE_...Capitalism _IS_
competition...without competition, they are NOT "Capitalists" because there
is no Capitalism in "monopoly"...it is the state of the _ABSENCE_ of
competition...this is simple corrupt dictatorship...this "PNG affair" an
example of the equivalent of corrupt "vote rigging" to win an
"election"...the "private communism" of Sir Bill (hey, look: He's even
officially an "honourary aristocrat" these days ;)...

I've seen DR's stuff before...they may not be the greatest programmers in
the universe but I've never found any serious faults in any of their work
I've encountered...indeed, GEM originally kicked Windows' arse quite
clearly...their DOS has support Microsoft never came near...

If Windows 3.x ran like a "bag of sh*t" with DR-DOS then the evidence
suggests we've got another "backwards" situation, in fact...that perhaps
Windows 3.x itself was _BROKEN_, depending on crap, broken implementations
in MS-DOS underneath it that, yes, DR-DOS didn't do because it was concern
with, well, you know, actually working properly...not being full to the
brim with bugs and broken functionality...

If you want to peddle copies of MASM, hutch, like a "dodgy geezer" palming
off fake Rolexs running up the full length of both arms at the local market
with "fell off the back of a lorry" prices and excuses, then
okay...whatever...in this corrupt world of ours, the black market - it's
sad to say - cannot always be totally condemned...

But if you are now trying to sell Microsoft as "angels of programming" or
that, like some modern-day "Fagan" that you're "practicing the noble art"
doing so, then, pull the other one, hutch...it can be _demonstrated_ quite
satisfactorily what Microsoft truly are...let's remember: Legally, they
_ARE_ criminals because they were found _guilty_ in the DoJ case for
bribery and such dubious quite illegal practices...the dilution of their
punishment into non-existence is just a demonstration that the rich can
escape anything and the law is theirs, not ours...

Their strategies are a plague eating on the fabric of competition,
Capitalism, technological progress, societies, individual freedom, etc....

They are _SCUM_...pure and simple...peddle and palm off your fake Rolexs,
hutch, if you like (indeed, such "black market" tactics harm _them_, not
anyone else)...but if you bring your false gods and Golden Cows here, then
I will endeavour to melt that Golden Cow down...its worth is only in the
value of melting it down and distributing it where it might serve a
_useful_ purpose...

Beth :)