On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > > > I am looking at it with Mozilla. Is it distorting reality? ;-) > > > > What am I missing? > > Two things:1. Mozilla may for compatbility reasons identify itself as I.E. > and IMHO more likely, I.E. is the more popular browser. >
See what I wrote in the other E-mail. > Despite all the FUD that it'sa Microsoft product and therefore inhernetly > evil, it is a darn good browser. > "Darn good"? I would not say that. Having seen the light with Konqueror and Mozilla, I can clearly say that MSIE now makes me highly annoyed whenever I have to use it. It doesn't have half the nice usability features that Mozilla and Konq have. And it's not standards compliant at all. See: http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/arts/reasons.html For 101 (!) things that Mozilla can do and MSIE can't. (and we're talking about the out of the box configuration). Furthermore, MSIE has now been declared as the new Netscape 4.x because of it's incomplete support for standards. It's also not going to be upgraded separately and Microsoft expect people to get new versions of it only when they upgrade their OS'es. I got so annoyed of having to use my Windows laptop to test the MSIE configuration, only to see that it many times breaks for things that are clearly daylight bugs, that I'm not going to test it anymore. If Microsoft abuses its users so much, it does not deserve that my sites will run perfectly with its broken browser, that cannot run on my OS of choice, and does not support the recent web standards properly. See: http://www.advogato.org/person/shlomif/diary.html?start=191 for a rant I wrote about the situation. > Slightly off topic: I recently set up a Solaris (SPARC) system to use as a > workstation. It came with a SUN browser no ever heard of (forgood reason) and > Netscape 4.?.After playing around with Netscape, Mozilla, Opera and I.E. 5.5, > I chose I.E. > > That does not mean that in six months when Mozilla is a bit more stable and WDYM by that? Mozilla is perfectly stable now. Even the alphas or betas versions are rock solid on my Linux system. (cannot testify for Windows 98, because the OS itself is flaky). > less of a resource hog, I might switch over to it, but for now, I.E. was the > best offering in town (and hard to find as M/S dropped it.) > If you're looking for a Mozilla-based browser that is not a resource hog - why don't you try Mozilla FireBird? Also, Opera is supposed to be very light and fast as well, so it's hard for me to believe MSIE for SPARC's is substantially better. > But then I'm a bit if a techno-luddite. I'm writing this message using > MicroEmacs (no real realtion to Emacs) and elm, both of which I started > using in 1991. > :-) Regards, Shlomi Fish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting its license changed. Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
