This Makes Me Angry
-
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. ;-)
-
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.
Okay, but now I'm wondering - what's the difference between having a webpage just boot an offline program via a "a href" link? Skype does that if you go skype:someuserid in a href attribute iirc. And the fact that chrome is using chrome:// is kinda the point, too. Arguably, you wouldn't even need to make a custom URL prefix like that, if you forced a certain path and just did file:///... but no one sane likes forcing paths. As a second suggestion - I know there's a lot of libraries for making webpages possible, but if people want "webapps", why doesn't someone just simply write something that can convert how a browser presents a webpage to the plugins, so the different browsers have multiplatform plugins? I actually use the IE Tab for Chrome extension. I'm not wasting half a minute waiting for IE to start up, and the ActiveX is a good amount faster. (and does better on the Acid3 test too)
-
I think the analogy kinda breaks down there. Both are supposed to clean both. But if push comes to shove you can always clean by hand. But you can't render a HTML page in your head. :rolleyes:
It wasn't supposed to be a major, definitive, profound analogy; it was just something I threw into a forum posting. If you want to extend it along sensible lines, try looking at the pans -- why do you need more than one? People all over the world manage with a single pot or wok, so why should your kitchen have over a dozen? The point is that there is no "best" browser, and certainly nothing that comes close to being the best for everything, so encouraging people to install multiple browsers is preferable -- certainly preferable to the current situation, where browser-lovers are still acting like schoolboys/d1ckheads over their personal browser preferences. It's not just HTML, any more. Expecting browsers to handle everything will result in their needing a gigabyte of memory to function at all. Oh. It already has.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
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.
M Towler wrote:
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.
That is the point. Why does Microsoft keep giving up on successful projects just to cater to the open source/standards crowd? Sure, make Visual Studio pump out mounds of steaming HTML 5/JavaScript for people who carp about standards - but keep making an awesome IE plugin (Silverlight) for those who actually want to provide their users with a better experience. Microsoft has the cash to do both very well. That way Microsoft Developers can continue to make a living providing great solutions while the rest of the world is still in a tizzy about the excrement the W3C is pumping out.
-
Nothing is good without competition. We can't have everyone following one company/power. There needs to be diversity, challenge, or whatever you want to call it.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
loctrice wrote:
Nothing is good without competition. We can't have everyone following one company/power. There needs to be diversity, challenge, or whatever you want to call it.
That's the bloody point. Everyone throwing up their hands and declaring the W3C the winner means no actual standard for another 8 years. I think Google or Microsoft or Apple (or both) could make HTML 5 irrelevant in that time. I hope they do.
-
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:
IndifferentDisdain wrote:
You're assuming MSFT is still an innovator...
Agreed, Microsoft doesn't have anyone to copy from for this. MS-DOS, copied from CP/M Windows, copied from Macintosh and Xerox Star Office, copied from AppleWorks and Ashton-Tate's Frameworks, although broken into interoperable pieces to maximize sales MSIE, copied from Netscape Surface, copied from iPad WinPhone Mango/Metro, their first innovation, but hey, accidents happen It's no wonder why they seem to have lost their way, they never had one to begin with. Even Billy's BASIC was copied from Dartmouth's design. Maybe I've been in the industry too long and watched it develop instead of being dropped into the middle and buying all the PR (although I have another compound word in mind).
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.