Hi
25 Mar 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's not the big companies bribing the diskjokeys, but the users
>> calling the jokey (on port 80)
SH> That is because they feel a need to connect with the website, and to
SH> do so they can use no browser other than the one(s) for which the
SH> website is specifically designed.
Definitely not ...
If people see a website saying optimized for ie4+ ther will not be a single
person saying: Oh .. I have to delete Netscape/Opera/Arachne/lynx/whatever
because I need IE to view this page.
I'm not using IE, and I haven't seen a single page that needs IE.
(expect update.microsoft.com :))
SH> All others are excluded and referred to a page urging the user to
SH> download the latest and greatest stuff.
Such sites usually don't have the content I want to read.
In other words I can happily live without them.
SH> This is about as absurd as listening to a disk jockey telling
SH> you that you aren't cool and you will be shunned by everybody who is
SH> really hip if you don't go out right now and buy the latest hit
SH> recordings.
Some would reply, that this is if somebody would require that no color
television program should be broadcasted, because there 3% of the
population can't see the colors.
This is *NOT* my point of view ... but there sure are many people thinking
so
SH> You might feel forced to listen to him anyway if his is
SH> the only station you can tune in
he is NOT the only station.
There are 2 other major choices (which conform to the latest standards)
and what is much more important, the specification of how to build a radio
station is freely available !!!
SH> Any old radio that can tune in the station's broadcast frequency will
SH> work just fine, but not just any old browser that can connect with
SH> port 80 can display the website.
this is the choice of the author of the page.
If he feels that it's OK for him to concentrate only on IE users, that's
his business ...
It's silly, and he will cut his own finger with that decision, but it's
still HIS choice.
(If I would be american I would say that the first amandment gives him the
right for free speech.)
I find it at least as silly to promote .ZBM, which is proprietary, and
there is no standard describing it.
Promoting proprietary things instead of using freely available standards is
allways a VERY bad idea !
(see kerberos implementation of M$ - which is NOT compatible with the real
kerberos implementation by the MIT)
SH> To design a commercial website that will work only with special
SH> browsers is about as stupid
YES ... I full-heartedly agree ...
but if the company decides to do so, they are free to do so.
We can boycot them and we can write them letters.
But in the last run it is their decision.
SH> I don't understand why so many people who want to advertise their
SH> products on the internet don't hire website developers to produce
SH> just normal webpages that will work with any browser.
99.9999% of the pages I view are such pages.
And sites which only work with one special browser are from such dumb
idi**s, that I'm not interested in their contents.
SH> They don't really need https and they certainly don't need
SH> JavaScript.
stop ...
we spoke from sites requireing ONE browser ... and not about free
standards.
HTTPS is *VERY* useful thing.
If you would know how easy it is to log network traffic, you would feel so
to. (NSA, Echelon, Carnivor, .....)
JavaScript by itself isn't evil either.
There are stupid webdesigners which make websites nearly only of JS.
BUT it is very possible to make sites, which use features of JS, while they
still look good in browsers not supporting JS.
SH> For browsers lacking such capabilities the webpage could simply
SH> refer the internet shopper to a simple page displaying a catalog of
SH> the products and list some telephone numbers to call for placing an
SH> order.
absolutely d'accord ...
if THEY don't do so it's their fault ... they will not make business with
you ... bad for them.
>> IMHO the bigest problem is, that it's simply UGLY ...
>> and I don't like the concept and the company :)
SH> I don't think MSIE is any more ugly looking than NetScape.
In my eyes yes ...
but this is not really what I meant ...
if you enter ww23.gd23tsddfgsdhassadfhsdfhasf.or.to.ka.b
in Netscape a window pops up telling you that Netscape was not able to
resolve the site called ww23.....
In IE a webpage is displayed .... telling you that the site can't be
displayed ....
SH> I personally prefer Opera's user interface over that of both MSIE and
SH> NetScape. Furthermore, Opera runs much faster than either of those
SH> two because she is not so full of bloat.
you have the choice ...
and as long as only standards are used, anybody can programm a new browser.
SH> I don't like either NetScape or MSIE because they are both resource
SH> hogs and they slow down your aging machine more and more with each
SH> successive upgrade. This is not at all the case with Arachne.
For me arachne lacks vital functions.
At the moment I would not use it as my standard browser.
(HTTPS, JavaScript, some sort of JavaPlugin as in mozilla or opera, NOT to
exit the executable to convert JPGs to BMPs, ability to have more than 2
concurrent connections)
Arachne is on it's way ...
SH> I hope Michael keeps up the good work.
me, too
SH> Furthermore, Arachne may be installed in such a way so as to run on a
SH> relatively small RAMDISK and she can run most remarkably fast, even
SH> on a very old machine.
Sure ... Arachne is really the best program for such situations !
But for a general purpose browser she also lacks some important
(to me) features.
Only my point of view.
SH> All the best,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Keyboard: Used for entering errors into a system <=-
