Mozilla - enough for me!
-
negacao wrote: If you want proper Java support on Win32, go to http://java.sun.com/ and download the JRE. Sorry to be honest, when I'll be in this situation, I will retire myself from programming. Java - JAPOC (just another piece of crap ;) ) But, don't understand me wrong: MS indeed should provide more standards compliance in their products. At least, they are the standards, isn't like that??? :-D :-D
We are 100% buzzword compliant. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
We are 100% buzzword compliant. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: We are 100% buzzword compliant. I'm sure about this, but I just don't want to make negacao feel completely not-understanded here. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
We are 100% buzzword compliant. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: We are 100% buzzword compliant. I feel more important just reading those buzzwords *puffs out chest and struts around kicking over all the C++ coders toys* :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Alison Pentland wrote: I now have an image of you in front of the mirror in the morning, wearing your knickers, socks and shoes trying to decided if they match! Tim Smith wrote: We are 100% buzzword compliant.
-
Good for you!! Anyway, where are Mozilla fans? ...and btw.: why did they do it?? To enter the market? X| oh, no, I understand now: they missed proper Java support from IE!! ROTFL!!! Only Chris will spen a lot of time to provide good support to Mozilla browser, but this is something else...
Don Miguel wrote: Only Chris will spen a lot of time to provide good support to Mozilla browser, but this is something else... Boy do you have the wrong end of the stick Don. It is about choice, about having an option which a lot of people will take, even if for the daft but tangible reason that the only other choice is Microsoft. And it is not about writing code to support Mozilla and then code to support IE. It is about writing standards compliant code and having it work in both Mozilla and IE (not too mention Opera, Knoqueror etc. etc. etc.) Mozilla is much more than just a browser to surf the web with. It's aim is to be an embedable standards compliant system for many devices, systems and applications. You can even read the Mozilla site where they stress that Mozilla is not meant to oust IE. Don Miguel wrote: Anyway, where are Mozilla fans? Right here big boy. Just do a search in Google for Mozilla... happens to be quite a bit of support for it. Oh and did I mention AOL is swapping to Mozilla *cough* sorry I mean Netscape? Yeah, 68million American (read: nice fat wallet) users start using Mozilla... No worth in "supporting" Mozilla at all. :rolleyes: Mozilla, for once, is not some stupid anti-Microsoft inspired attack from *nix users. This time the *nix fans got it right. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Alison Pentland wrote: I now have an image of you in front of the mirror in the morning, wearing your knickers, socks and shoes trying to decided if they match!
-
I'd estimate that 90% of the problems mentioned above are because: 1. IE is faster, because it's built into the damn OS. You don't notice the startup time, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY LOADED. 2. Mozilla has trouble rendering certain sites, because MOZILLA STICKS TO THE STANDARD. When a moron site coder builds toward IE (e.g. non-standard) of course Moz is gonna have problems on it.
negacao wrote: You don't notice the startup time, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY LOADED. In fact, I think that the browser itself load the OS...;P ;P
-
Don Miguel wrote: Only Chris will spen a lot of time to provide good support to Mozilla browser, but this is something else... Boy do you have the wrong end of the stick Don. It is about choice, about having an option which a lot of people will take, even if for the daft but tangible reason that the only other choice is Microsoft. And it is not about writing code to support Mozilla and then code to support IE. It is about writing standards compliant code and having it work in both Mozilla and IE (not too mention Opera, Knoqueror etc. etc. etc.) Mozilla is much more than just a browser to surf the web with. It's aim is to be an embedable standards compliant system for many devices, systems and applications. You can even read the Mozilla site where they stress that Mozilla is not meant to oust IE. Don Miguel wrote: Anyway, where are Mozilla fans? Right here big boy. Just do a search in Google for Mozilla... happens to be quite a bit of support for it. Oh and did I mention AOL is swapping to Mozilla *cough* sorry I mean Netscape? Yeah, 68million American (read: nice fat wallet) users start using Mozilla... No worth in "supporting" Mozilla at all. :rolleyes: Mozilla, for once, is not some stupid anti-Microsoft inspired attack from *nix users. This time the *nix fans got it right. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Alison Pentland wrote: I now have an image of you in front of the mirror in the morning, wearing your knickers, socks and shoes trying to decided if they match!
Paul Watson wrote: Just do a search in Google for Mozilla... happens to be quite a bit of support for it After a very fast search: Mozilla: 5.170.000 hits Microsoft: 31.000.000 hits. np, thats conspiracy, I'm sure.... And I forgot 3.490 hits for "Mozzila" spelling.... Paul Watson wrote: It is about choice, about having an option which a lot of people will take, even if for the daft but tangible reason that the only other choice is Microsoft. Other choice than Microsoft??? :omg: Who need another choice?? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Maybe you ought to try getting an actual _release_ of Mozilla - 1.0 is much faster on my boxen than any version of Konq. :)
I've always found the opposite to be true. I used a lot of different types of releases. I run Debian and update regularly. Currently I'm still running KDE2.2 and the least time I ran Mozilla it was slower than Konqueror. While running the two are extremely close but I feel that Konqueror is usually the winner ( with the huge exception of Javascript where Mozilla takes the cake ). During startup Konqueror is a much larger winner. Jared jparsons@jparsons.org www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte477n
-
After seing so many discutions here, on CP, about Mozilla nice features, I decided finally to give a try and install it on my computer. Everything fine, untill I start it. What a piece of crap! Nothing to really impress me. Usually I open lot of IE instancess to see many pages, and... it worked fine for me. It seems IE doesn't consume so many resources for a new instance... (and in fact this is true indeed). But when I started Mozilla, my IE become slow also. Hm... One thought, finally: about that "navigation tab"s - nice feature, but... let be serious: in few hours, a skilled COM developer could develop a explorer band for IE, which could emulate this tab navigation... and much more, if he want ;P So, after 5 minutes, I remove Mozilla :-D :-D and go back to my nice IE. I had also the feeling that I keep my computer cleaner, this way. ;). Serious, I use only MS products for my tasks, and, with proper settings and a little atention, everything work fine for me.
To quote your subject "Mozilla - enough for me!". Mozilla - enough for me, I don't need no stinkin' IE. Well to be honest I use both, but I tend to use M as my browser of choice, and just use IE for those stubborn non-standard sites.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Mozilla, its enough for me, I don't need no stinkin' IE. -
Paul Watson wrote: Mozilla follows standards quite well (not perfectly of course) and if it encounters a site optimised for IE then there will be problems. Paper standards. Comitee Standars. IE is "de facto" standard. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
Daniel Turini wrote: Paper standards. Comitee Standars. IE is "de facto" standard. Yeah! Shame on Mozilla for not conforming to the Microsoft "screw the standards" approach.
-
I'd estimate that 90% of the problems mentioned above are because: 1. IE is faster, because it's built into the damn OS. You don't notice the startup time, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY LOADED. 2. Mozilla has trouble rendering certain sites, because MOZILLA STICKS TO THE STANDARD. When a moron site coder builds toward IE (e.g. non-standard) of course Moz is gonna have problems on it.
negacao wrote: Mozilla has trouble rendering certain sites, because MOZILLA STICKS TO THE STANDARD. When a moron site coder builds toward IE (e.g. non-standard) of course Moz is gonna have problems on it. What is a web developer supposed to do when 95% of the web's users use IE? Code for Mozilla, Netscape, etc? Of course not! If they did, then THAT would be idiotic!
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Tim Smith wrote: We are 100% buzzword compliant. I feel more important just reading those buzzwords *puffs out chest and struts around kicking over all the C++ coders toys* :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Alison Pentland wrote: I now have an image of you in front of the mirror in the morning, wearing your knickers, socks and shoes trying to decided if they match! Tim Smith wrote: We are 100% buzzword compliant.
Paul Watson wrote: feel more important just reading those buzzwords *puffs out chest and struts around kicking over all the C++ coders toys* Toys like in what you use when you not doing anything important? So VB that is! :laugh:
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Paper standards. Comitee Standars. IE is "de facto" standard. Yeah! Shame on Mozilla for not conforming to the Microsoft "screw the standards" approach.
What I'm stating here is a simple fact: the massive HTML made today is only tested with Internet Explorer. Coding a browser TODAY that cannot read this HTML and whining that "MS does not conform to the standards" is plain stupid, this will not get more people using your browser. Like the original post, people will start uninstalling Mozilla. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
-
negacao wrote: Mozilla has trouble rendering certain sites, because MOZILLA STICKS TO THE STANDARD. When a moron site coder builds toward IE (e.g. non-standard) of course Moz is gonna have problems on it. What is a web developer supposed to do when 95% of the web's users use IE? Code for Mozilla, Netscape, etc? Of course not! If they did, then THAT would be idiotic!
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
What is a web developer supposed to do when 95% of the web's users use IE? Well, they could code to W3C standards. But then again, who needs standards. The whole point of standards is that someone using a NON IE browser cannot see the site at all in some cases because there is no Internet Explorer browser for my chosen platform (SGI O2). Same thing goes with programming languages. Agreeing on a standard makes everyone compatible. Standards eliminate the need to code for anything specific. But some people are having trouble with that idea. Shawn
-
After seing so many discutions here, on CP, about Mozilla nice features, I decided finally to give a try and install it on my computer. Everything fine, untill I start it. What a piece of crap! Nothing to really impress me. Usually I open lot of IE instancess to see many pages, and... it worked fine for me. It seems IE doesn't consume so many resources for a new instance... (and in fact this is true indeed). But when I started Mozilla, my IE become slow also. Hm... One thought, finally: about that "navigation tab"s - nice feature, but... let be serious: in few hours, a skilled COM developer could develop a explorer band for IE, which could emulate this tab navigation... and much more, if he want ;P So, after 5 minutes, I remove Mozilla :-D :-D and go back to my nice IE. I had also the feeling that I keep my computer cleaner, this way. ;). Serious, I use only MS products for my tasks, and, with proper settings and a little atention, everything work fine for me.
Frankly, I never saw much motivation to install a second browser when one was already installed with the OS. It's not like I need a browser to do rocket science for me. Bring up the document, let me type into a form and click the submit button, that's about it. All these browser 'features' are just background noise to the overriding motivation - religious wars. Man, do I miss the old days of the Microsoft Monopoly. You wrote a program, and it was a no brainer to write it for Windows. The only portability issues were between versions of Windows. And if you wanted, you could just tell the customer that they had to have the latest and greatest version. We didn't care about coding cross platform to Unix or Apple or IBM mainframe, because the gazillion Windows users were enough. Screw everybody else, let them buy a PC. People knew what technologies to learn and embrace (i.e. whatever MS was selling at the moment). Apps were apps. Men were men. Small furry creatures were, well... Now it's back to the bad old days of the Wild West. Web development, because of all the browser versions, is like having to write an app that will run on Windows, Unix and a Mac. The lowest common denominator rules. God, how I hate web development. Bring back the Microsoft Monopoly! Eliminate all other brands on the Internet and let us code to one glorious standard again! Cross platform coding is a hinderence to programmers. Screw the heathens! If they have problems, let them buy a PC and run IE! After all, we're the programmers. They can have whatever software we tell them they can have! Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Paul Watson wrote: Just do a search in Google for Mozilla... happens to be quite a bit of support for it After a very fast search: Mozilla: 5.170.000 hits Microsoft: 31.000.000 hits. np, thats conspiracy, I'm sure.... And I forgot 3.490 hits for "Mozzila" spelling.... Paul Watson wrote: It is about choice, about having an option which a lot of people will take, even if for the daft but tangible reason that the only other choice is Microsoft. Other choice than Microsoft??? :omg: Who need another choice?? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Very poor search at that.
-
Frankly, I never saw much motivation to install a second browser when one was already installed with the OS. It's not like I need a browser to do rocket science for me. Bring up the document, let me type into a form and click the submit button, that's about it. All these browser 'features' are just background noise to the overriding motivation - religious wars. Man, do I miss the old days of the Microsoft Monopoly. You wrote a program, and it was a no brainer to write it for Windows. The only portability issues were between versions of Windows. And if you wanted, you could just tell the customer that they had to have the latest and greatest version. We didn't care about coding cross platform to Unix or Apple or IBM mainframe, because the gazillion Windows users were enough. Screw everybody else, let them buy a PC. People knew what technologies to learn and embrace (i.e. whatever MS was selling at the moment). Apps were apps. Men were men. Small furry creatures were, well... Now it's back to the bad old days of the Wild West. Web development, because of all the browser versions, is like having to write an app that will run on Windows, Unix and a Mac. The lowest common denominator rules. God, how I hate web development. Bring back the Microsoft Monopoly! Eliminate all other brands on the Internet and let us code to one glorious standard again! Cross platform coding is a hinderence to programmers. Screw the heathens! If they have problems, let them buy a PC and run IE! After all, we're the programmers. They can have whatever software we tell them they can have! Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
I hope you forgot the tags.
-
I hope you forgot the tags.
:confused: Sorry, didn't follow that. Could you use smaller words for those of use who aren't web developer gurus? :) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
negacao wrote: Mozilla has trouble rendering certain sites, because MOZILLA STICKS TO THE STANDARD. When a moron site coder builds toward IE (e.g. non-standard) of course Moz is gonna have problems on it. What is a web developer supposed to do when 95% of the web's users use IE? Code for Mozilla, Netscape, etc? Of course not! If they did, then THAT would be idiotic!
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: use IE? Code for Mozilla, Netscape, etc? Umm.. Perhaps you don't understand the word STANDARD. The Standards, as described by the W3 and IETF (others, too), for HTML, XML, CSS, etc all render properly in Mozilla. E.g. If you code to the STANDARDS, it will render PROPERLY IN ALL BROWSERS THAT ARE STANDARDS COMPLIANT - Yes, this includs Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Konq, ... The problem is that I.E., the browser of choice because of a monopolistic practice (grin), renders pages improperly when they don't comply to the standards - that is, guess what the author meant when the page doesn't comply to the standard. It then allows people to make mistakes, like vs. .. A properly standards compliant browser would flip out on one of those.. ;-)
-
I've always found the opposite to be true. I used a lot of different types of releases. I run Debian and update regularly. Currently I'm still running KDE2.2 and the least time I ran Mozilla it was slower than Konqueror. While running the two are extremely close but I feel that Konqueror is usually the winner ( with the huge exception of Javascript where Mozilla takes the cake ). During startup Konqueror is a much larger winner. Jared jparsons@jparsons.org www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte477n
-
What I'm stating here is a simple fact: the massive HTML made today is only tested with Internet Explorer. Coding a browser TODAY that cannot read this HTML and whining that "MS does not conform to the standards" is plain stupid, this will not get more people using your browser. Like the original post, people will start uninstalling Mozilla. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. The Mozilla team would spend all of its time trying to implement Microsoft's latest feature set. In this senario, there no longer is a standards commitee, it is just what ever Microsoft feels like doing. The bottom line is that Microsoft should not be able to set the standard just because it currently has market dominance.