This Makes Me Angry
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
But do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
Stryder_1 wrote:
But do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
No, but if a pot doesn't fit into the dishwasher, or if the dishwasher can't clean it, I clean it with something else.
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.
I don't see what the problem is. Google are releasing a plugin into the market and whether it becomes adopted will depend entirely on user take up, there is little they can do to force users to use it. Microsoft has added lots of extensions to IE over the years in the hope the world would all migrate to using them, this seems no different. MS mostly failed because their browser was, IMO and continues to be, very poor compared to the competition. If users move to chrome in droves, this interface will become standardised and all browsers will either support it or die. Silverlight was introduced as a reaction by Microsoft to Flash taking over the web, with the fairly widely understood aim of killing off Flash. This fragmented the market which hurt Flash, then Apple's refusal to allow Flash on mobile devices killed it off. The job done, Microsoft IMO fairly cynically pulled Silverlight. The point I am making is that in the sphere of web browsers, Darwinism is what decides what flourishes, with success being defined by user take up, in turn driving web developer support.
-
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.
I know this is rough on a lot of developers but I had to chuckle. I just LAST NIGHT decided to stop trying to write web-based stuff as I really don't care for it and don't have any call for it. (Let the "kids" do it). I find HTML in general to be a real kludge when it comes to the front-end for software. It takes 3 times (if not more) effort to do EVERYTHING. (I have tried to sell myself on it it for about 13 years so it's not like I haven't tried). I write desktop apps that handle databases. My clients are small, they don't care for all their data to live out on the web anyway. I'd much rather focus on getting my clients their problems solved than spending 70-80% of my development time maintaining all the stuff associated with trying to target all these web browsers and their kludgy implementation. Yuck. Yes, there is a lot of really slick stuff being done on the web (and I use it ) but I've been at this for 37 years and I keep seeing developers get jerked around by stuff like this. The hell with that. I'll just spend the rest of my career writing stuff that no one else can "lower" themselves to do anymore. (and have a life) I make six-figures doing that. Just breaks my heart that Google is jerking everybody around. ;-)