Re: OO? Oh oh!
From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 01/30/04
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Re: Performance in perform loops"
- Previous message: Habitant: "Riemann' Hypothesis and the Million $ price"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Next in thread: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:45:39 +1300
Excellent post, Richard.
Some comments below...
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0401291317.310ea108@posting.google.com...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote
>
> > > No. The best marketeer has the most sheep following them.
> >
> > OK. The sheep set the standard. Look at the many web pages designed
to work
> > with I.E. but fail when used with a browser that follows rules.
>
> Often the web site is completely unaware that the pages don't work
> with standards based browsers, often the web sites are unaware that
> there are other browsers. They just use 'Front Page' to make pretty
> pages and MS ensures that Front Page generates code that breaks
> browsers other than the latest MS one.
>
I have recently been working on a Chinese Web site which has some pages in
English. They asked me to review their very poor English and I agreed. (The
things one does for money...<G>)
I FTPed the pages in question down to my machine, and was appalled at the
intricate nesting of Layout tables, which was really quite unnecessary.
Dreamweaver flags them all and shows the "wheels within wheels" graphically
as well as in code.
I marvelled at how anyone could set up such rubbish, then I saw that the
page was generated by FrontPage... 'nuff said.
> This is intended to force non-MS software users to buy MS software,
> and MS software users with older software to upgrade. Exactly the
> same happens with MS Office documents.
>
> It is only dumb sheep who think that this represents any form of
> 'standards'.
>
All too often people believe that WHATEVER MS says is the "standard". I have
encountered this on may sites and it is very diffcult to shift this idea
once it is in someone's head... All I can conclude is that MS Marketing is
very effective.#
> In some cases the non-standard page 'features' were contracturally
> required by Microsoft. Back when MS drove others out of the market by
> giving away IE (actually it was SpyGlass's revenue that was being
> forgone, not MS's), they were allowing sites (such as AOL) to
> distribute IE but contractuarally requiring that IE specific
> non-standard extensions were coded into the site's web pages and then
> suggesting that the user should download IE to overcome the problems
> they were having.
>
Is that "urban myth" or did they really get away with it?
> Only sheep would not see how disingenuous that was.
>
> Now with Longhorn MS will attempt to change yet again to some new sets
> of 'standards'. MS don't want to stop spam or viruses, yet, they want
> to use these to get the sheep to upgrade to a new mechanism that will
> keep the 'evil hackers' out by reinventing the internet with new
> mechanisms that guarantee an all-MS world, protected by MS patents.
>
> The problem for MS is that it is at least two years away and even
> sheep get restless.
Yes, they certainly do. Sadly, they don't have a lot of choice in terms of
pasture...or shepherd, for that matter....
Pete.
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Re: Performance in perform loops"
- Previous message: Habitant: "Riemann' Hypothesis and the Million $ price"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Next in thread: JerryMouse: "Re: OO? Oh oh!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
