This Makes Me Angry
-
For me, the Internet browser is just a tool, which allows me to do various things. I have five different browsers installed on this machine, just like I have seven different text editors, and four full-blooded word processors. I don't expect all text editors/word processors to behave the same; in fact, the reason that I have variety is precisely because they don't all behave the same -- I use text editor 3 for doing A, because it does it better than text editor 2, etc. I dare say that most people who subscribe to CP also have multiple text editors/IDEs/graphics apps. But you don't hear everyone bitching because NotePad+ and TextPad do things differently! So chrome has its own thinghy for doing whatzit. I don't give a cr@p. -- If I want to do whatzit, I'll open chrome. -- If I want to do a complex document with conditional text, I'll open framemaker or Madcap Flare. -- If I want to edit Java, I'll open Eclipse. -- If I want to edit a photo, I'll open PaintShop Pro. -- If I want to use saved/saveable browser sessions, I'll open Opera. -- If I want to create a flow diagram, I'll open Visio. -- If I want to edit C#, I'll open VS. -- If I want to use Sharepoint I'll open IE. -- If I want to cry, I'll open Word 2010. Get over it, eh?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
:thumbsup: Like
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
As developers we embrace complexity. Most people who use computers just want to do a couple of simple tasks.
That's not complexity. You don't use a dishwasher for washing clothes, or a microwave for watching soap operas (although it would probably be preferable). "If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone. Browsers are not idols that you have to worship at the feet of, so we -- as in us in CP, and those like us -- have to stop making it look like people have to *LOVE* one browser and *HATE* all others.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
That's not complexity. You don't use a dishwasher for washing clothes, or a microwave for watching soap operas (although it would probably be preferable). "If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone. Browsers are not idols that you have to worship at the feet of, so we -- as in us in CP, and those like us -- have to stop making it look like people have to *LOVE* one browser and *HATE* all others.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Here is a bit of news.[^] I'm not angry at what Google is attempting to do. I'm angry because the horse shit that is the HTML stack is widely known to be just that, horse shit, and yet somehow Microsoft has been bullied into giving up on their own solutions to this problem. In an article I read just yesterday Google announced that Chrome would be dropping support for some browser extensions - we're getting played here. So it's great that Google is going to be pushing this stuff but it is the Chromites who were part of the chorus decrying things like Flash and Silverlight. Here is the salient point: 'The Standards' have never been about creating a single, open source solution to the web. 'The Standards' are a tool to bully the other browser vendors into pushing out an inferior product (HTML 5 compliance) while you work on your own extensions/clients/etc. Silverlight is a brilliant product. Bring it back and make it the hottest web plugin possible. If Microsoft won't force the world to play it's game we'll all end up playing Google's game. And that would be okay - I want to program using tools by a company that isn't afraid to win.
welcome to capitalism.
-
So making you angry is what is bad in that it would make you angry, but not liking you when you are not angry will make you angry as not being liked is worth getting angry, as not getting angry is not being liked. Luckily the few that do like you when you are not angry might also agree that they will not be liking you when you are angry, not to mention those that did not like you when you were not angry will now like you being angry, the very few that liked you when you were not angry will like you more when you do get angry, ignoring those that did not like you when you are not angry and still will not be liking you when you do get angry. :rolleyes: I would suggest getting angry and then liking yourself getting angry. Who knows you might just start growing bigger and bigger as you are getting blue from not breathing (Well what did you expect? Obviously you are not the Hulk or anything) :wtf:
Loading signature... . . . Please Wait . . .
-
I'd agree there is no reason for snobbery. However, my parents think Google is the name of their browser. True story.
And people thought that that other browser was named Netscape and a spreadsheet app was named Lotus. :rolleyes:
-
That's not complexity. You don't use a dishwasher for washing clothes, or a microwave for watching soap operas (although it would probably be preferable). "If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone. Browsers are not idols that you have to worship at the feet of, so we -- as in us in CP, and those like us -- have to stop making it look like people have to *LOVE* one browser and *HATE* all others.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
"If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone.
Good point. The same with video games and consoles -- not all games are available for all consoles. And apps and phones/tablets.
-
So making you angry is what is bad in that it would make you angry, but not liking you when you are not angry will make you angry as not being liked is worth getting angry, as not getting angry is not being liked. Luckily the few that do like you when you are not angry might also agree that they will not be liking you when you are angry, not to mention those that did not like you when you were not angry will now like you being angry, the very few that liked you when you were not angry will like you more when you do get angry, ignoring those that did not like you when you are not angry and still will not be liking you when you do get angry. :rolleyes: I would suggest getting angry and then liking yourself getting angry. Who knows you might just start growing bigger and bigger as you are getting blue from not breathing (Well what did you expect? Obviously you are not the Hulk or anything) :wtf:
Loading signature... . . . Please Wait . . .
-
That's not complexity. You don't use a dishwasher for washing clothes, or a microwave for watching soap operas (although it would probably be preferable). "If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone. Browsers are not idols that you have to worship at the feet of, so we -- as in us in CP, and those like us -- have to stop making it look like people have to *LOVE* one browser and *HATE* all others.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Here is a bit of news.[^] I'm not angry at what Google is attempting to do. I'm angry because the horse shit that is the HTML stack is widely known to be just that, horse shit, and yet somehow Microsoft has been bullied into giving up on their own solutions to this problem. In an article I read just yesterday Google announced that Chrome would be dropping support for some browser extensions - we're getting played here. So it's great that Google is going to be pushing this stuff but it is the Chromites who were part of the chorus decrying things like Flash and Silverlight. Here is the salient point: 'The Standards' have never been about creating a single, open source solution to the web. 'The Standards' are a tool to bully the other browser vendors into pushing out an inferior product (HTML 5 compliance) while you work on your own extensions/clients/etc. Silverlight is a brilliant product. Bring it back and make it the hottest web plugin possible. If Microsoft won't force the world to play it's game we'll all end up playing Google's game. And that would be okay - I want to program using tools by a company that isn't afraid to win.
-
But do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
Stryder_1 wrote:
do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
Only the polygamists have those.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
Here is a bit of news.[^] I'm not angry at what Google is attempting to do. I'm angry because the horse shit that is the HTML stack is widely known to be just that, horse shit, and yet somehow Microsoft has been bullied into giving up on their own solutions to this problem. In an article I read just yesterday Google announced that Chrome would be dropping support for some browser extensions - we're getting played here. So it's great that Google is going to be pushing this stuff but it is the Chromites who were part of the chorus decrying things like Flash and Silverlight. Here is the salient point: 'The Standards' have never been about creating a single, open source solution to the web. 'The Standards' are a tool to bully the other browser vendors into pushing out an inferior product (HTML 5 compliance) while you work on your own extensions/clients/etc. Silverlight is a brilliant product. Bring it back and make it the hottest web plugin possible. If Microsoft won't force the world to play it's game we'll all end up playing Google's game. And that would be okay - I want to program using tools by a company that isn't afraid to win.
Who cares anymore? The web is a burning wreckage filled with the decomposing bodies of various "seemed like a good idea at the time"-'technologies'. Offline programs are the only way forward for anything that isn't explicitly meant to be a website. Just say no to silly web "apps". And elephant Weight's "look at how cool this is oh wait it isn't it's just an offline webpage", too. Yes, I mad.
-
I'm neither, I had a beer instead.
speramus in juniperus
-
Who cares anymore? The web is a burning wreckage filled with the decomposing bodies of various "seemed like a good idea at the time"-'technologies'. Offline programs are the only way forward for anything that isn't explicitly meant to be a website. Just say no to silly web "apps". And elephant Weight's "look at how cool this is oh wait it isn't it's just an offline webpage", too. Yes, I mad.
harold aptroot wrote:
Offline programs are the only way forward for anything that isn't explicitly meant to be a website. Just say no to silly web "apps".
Amen and hallelujah!
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
Here is a bit of news.[^] I'm not angry at what Google is attempting to do. I'm angry because the horse shit that is the HTML stack is widely known to be just that, horse shit, and yet somehow Microsoft has been bullied into giving up on their own solutions to this problem. In an article I read just yesterday Google announced that Chrome would be dropping support for some browser extensions - we're getting played here. So it's great that Google is going to be pushing this stuff but it is the Chromites who were part of the chorus decrying things like Flash and Silverlight. Here is the salient point: 'The Standards' have never been about creating a single, open source solution to the web. 'The Standards' are a tool to bully the other browser vendors into pushing out an inferior product (HTML 5 compliance) while you work on your own extensions/clients/etc. Silverlight is a brilliant product. Bring it back and make it the hottest web plugin possible. If Microsoft won't force the world to play it's game we'll all end up playing Google's game. And that would be okay - I want to program using tools by a company that isn't afraid to win.
Just wanted to point out that Chrome isn't banning plugins. It's banning a plugin architecture. There are other architectures, and if Microsoft ports Silverlight to use the newer (more secure) architecture, then Silverlight will continue to work on Chrome.
-
I don't think Google running things would be bad. I'm willing to code in any IDE offered by a company that isn't constantly apologizing for winning. It's beyond me why Microsoft is afraid of setting the course. If they don't do it then some other innovator will gladly take the job.
MehGerbil wrote:
It's beyond me why Microsoft is afraid of setting the course.
If they don't do it then some other innovator will gladly take the job.You're assuming MSFT is still an innovator... :sigh:
-
I'm neither, I had a beer instead.
speramus in juniperus
-
Here is a bit of news.[^] I'm not angry at what Google is attempting to do. I'm angry because the horse shit that is the HTML stack is widely known to be just that, horse shit, and yet somehow Microsoft has been bullied into giving up on their own solutions to this problem. In an article I read just yesterday Google announced that Chrome would be dropping support for some browser extensions - we're getting played here. So it's great that Google is going to be pushing this stuff but it is the Chromites who were part of the chorus decrying things like Flash and Silverlight. Here is the salient point: 'The Standards' have never been about creating a single, open source solution to the web. 'The Standards' are a tool to bully the other browser vendors into pushing out an inferior product (HTML 5 compliance) while you work on your own extensions/clients/etc. Silverlight is a brilliant product. Bring it back and make it the hottest web plugin possible. If Microsoft won't force the world to play it's game we'll all end up playing Google's game. And that would be okay - I want to program using tools by a company that isn't afraid to win.
Flash and Silverlight? This goes much further back than that. Java applets were, I think, the first general-purpose solution to the problem that every round of people seems to think we don't need a solution for and then realizes we do, after all.
-
Who cares anymore? The web is a burning wreckage filled with the decomposing bodies of various "seemed like a good idea at the time"-'technologies'. Offline programs are the only way forward for anything that isn't explicitly meant to be a website. Just say no to silly web "apps". And elephant Weight's "look at how cool this is oh wait it isn't it's just an offline webpage", too. Yes, I mad.
harold aptroot wrote:
Offline programs are the only way forward for anything that isn't explicitly meant to be a website. Just say no to silly web "apps".
That is rather reassuring particularly since my work in in offline apps and I am currently training myself in WPF which incidentally I think is the bees knees :-D
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens