Re: OO? Oh oh!

From: JerryMouse (nospam_at_bisusa.com)
Date: 01/30/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:07:11 -0600

Richard wrote:
> "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.

Exactly! That's why we write software exclusively for Windows.

If it works with Windows, that's fine by us. If some other OS breaks, tough
***. I am NOT going back to the days where we had to have an airplane
hanger full of printers and modems to make sure our stuff worked on every
concievable permutation of hardware and software.

It's far simplier for our customer to buy (or we'll give them) $250 for the
latest version of Windows than for our small programming staff to come up
with versions that work with Amigas, MACs, BSD, Linux, Unix, and all the
other weevils.

>
> 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'.

Hmmm. If (big percentage) agree on something, doesn't that become the
standard (de facto, at least)?

>
> 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.

"Drove others out of business?" Who? Meanwhile, millions - make that tens of
millions - didn't have to pay Netscape $50 (and that was back when $50 was a
lot of money).

>
> Only sheep would not see how disingenuous that was.
>

Bah! (or Baa!)

> 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.

Yeah. They (or we) will either just mill around and cope, or try jumping
over the fence. Evidence shows, however, when sheep jump the fence all that
happens is that people go to sleep.

Quantcast