Re: OT: windoze woes and full rant mode is on

"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Pete Dashwood wrote:
You could easily conclude that the best solution is probably to do
EVERYTHING on the web server, then simply serve up a dynamically
constructed page that suits the particular browser being used. This is
the goal I am currently trying to reach, but it certainly isn't easy.

I will soon be undertaking a major web development effort and will use
all the experience I have accumulated previously to try and attain this

It isn't just about browsers, either. There is the question of what the
Hosting ISP will allow... can I run COBOL CGI code? Does he support ASP,
Java/VB Script on the server? Can I use MySQL or must it be SQL Server?

I was reading along, and suddenly reeled back in horror. In a flash of
light, it occurred to me that *some* people that do web applications do
not run their own web servers. Technical people, that is. I cannot help
but wonder, "why not?".

For the same reason that many of them are outsourcing their IT
development... it is not a business they want to be in and they can buy
hosting very cheaply.

I DO run my own web server (IIS) but it is ONLY for development and is not
exposed to the web directly. Yes, I COULD switch to Apache and use that.
Guess why I don't...

Setting up a web server is a relatively trivial exercise, and allows you to
choose what you wish. Every facility you mention is Open Source, freely
available software.

Unless the channel capacity requires heavy resources, there is little
reason for a business not to host their own applications.

There is little reason that you can see... :-)

Even if they do need high capacity, that is more a matter of hardware,
including line bandwidth, than it is of software.

There is much more to it than the average person realises when they just
find that their browser doesn't render a certain page correctly.

Web developers are probably never going to be all things to all people
(except maybe for the very most trivial applications with static pages).
I try to listen to the feedback I get and take it on board. But if it
takes me 100 hours to make something I have already built, visible to 15%
of the audience for it, I'd rather invest that 100 hours providing better
stuff for the 85%...

Keep in mind that the 15% you are locking out are the cream of the crop.
The universities tend toward Open Source, so if your page is
Windows-centric, you are alienating the up-and-comers.

That's a chance I'll have to take, at least for now...

Truly it is written...

"For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him
shall be taken away even that which he hath."

(St. Mark, if I remember rightly...)


Testing on different browsers is trivial, providing you have a machine
with each. Or a virtual machine with each. You should be able to
download those.

Yeah, right... :-)

I also do not think it a matter of having to program for dozens of
operating systems/browsers. I think it more a matter of recognizing those
tools sets which fall into the standard, and those that do not.

I agree. But there is a real marketplace and there is a not-so-real one that
exists in the minds of certain tech people.

Besides, I now have a number of years invested in learning the product set.
I have no inclination to start over.

For me, this is like a discussion about the brand of power drill I use. I
don't care whether Black and Decker is better or worse than Makita, so long
as it makes holes...

The tools I use work. If I upgrade, they'll work better. I'll upgrade when
someone makes it worth my while. Simple as that.

It may be more a matter of simply avoiding a few bad practices. Or
specific tool-sets.

Very probably.