animosity079

Alright... I do think we are getting closer to an agreement. I believe that you are an intelligent person, with a firm grasp on the IT industry. However, you aren't going to convince me, and I won't convince you, which is probably the way its supposed to be. Well, cool. I appreciate your opinion on regulations, but protocols are entirely different from legal regulation. Ehh... I see your point. And I agree to an extent. Maybe Dell was a poor example. Microsoft can leverage a company pretty hardcore. If I was assembling computers here in St. Louis, and selling them, and Microsoft found out that I was disabling IE and putting Mozilla on instead, Microsoft could EASILY come in and say.. "fine.. we'll rise your license price to $200 for not disabling IE." They would put me out of business. And I believe they would. They have bought out, and forced under so many companies its rediculous. Hell.. they went after poor Mike Rowe, guns a-blazin, for starting mikerowesoft.com. And now they are trying to patent everything under the sun. I wouldn't put it past MS to lean on a company to NOT include other browsers. Maybe they wouldn't put a company out of business. Maybe they wouldn't make the price rediculous. But, I'm guessing they would make the distributer's life a little more difficult. I'm generalizing a bit here, but I'm presenting a situation in which Microsoft could leverage a company to package their software exclusively. I know I'm trying to plea to everyone's emotion by arguing that putting companies out of business is a fault of Microsoft's, and thus they would be evil in their pricing schemes. But, I'm presenting an opinion and a hypothetical situation here. Umm.. You are confusing my arguments with someone else's. I haven't breathed one word about CSS3 vs CSS1. People like bells and whistles like text glow. My sisters wouldn't appreciate a fast-loading slick design like I would. Thats my point. You and I would probably both hate MIDI files playing in the background, blinking text, etc. My sisters wouldn't care, as long as they got some gossip on why Mary-Kate Olsen is anorexic. I can ignore the "fact" because its not a fact. You can't really compare the scrutiny of one browser over another (and I never claimed to. I just refuted the claim that Mozilla isn't scrutinized.) Fundamentally, IE is NOT open source. Mozilla IS. So, the process of discovering bugs is a little different, and we can't claim that one method of revealing bugs is better than the other, because we have no evidence. With Mozilla you could test compiled functionality, AND scrutinze the code. IE you can only test compiled functionality. Does the mass of people testing the compiled functionality of IE give better results? Perhaps. And perhaps not. On the other side, I can't wait for the same thing, so we can prove that a focused open source software project can produce a better product than a corporate funded project. But, thats all just speculation. I see your point. Red is red. Blue is blue. A form field is a form field. You can't really make one render THAT much better than the other. I know that Firefox (and others) on Linux will render anti-aliased fonts, which look remarkable, but one could argue that is because its on Linux, and if IE were there, the fonts would be AA as well. So, I'm not going to argue that point. I REALLY hope you don't think I've been whining, because I haven't told anyone to consistantly use one piece of software over another (only to try others.) I hope you see that I've pointed out numerous flaws in the reasoning behind using IE. Okay, so people have argued against bugs and security. You want to know about aesthetics? Firefox is unbelievably simple to skin, and make it aesthetically pleasing to the user. Is that what you are getting after, or do you want to know about web page aesthetics? Well, if you were to view the page in Firefox on Linux, you would get antialiased fonts. Other than that, sure a text box would look like a text box. But what about the future? Alright, so thats not really an argument, but if you aren't developing for the future, the aesthetics won't get any better. Let me flip this around. Whats wrong with Firefox aesthetically? What gets rendered properly, I think, we've argued is moot. I've got issues with IE and with Windows in general. As I've said before, I'm a Firefox 0.9 and RedHat 9.0 (soon to be Fedora 2) guy. But, a great deal of why I like those things aren't things I could argue that are the best thing possible across the board. I don't want to taint my arguments here with my personal bias. I've used just about every OS and every GUI out there, and I have developed opinions on what is the "best." But, my Grandma may not agree, so I'm not going to attempt to sweepingly convince you folks. I'm going to refer you to an article that was recently posted on slashdot. Now, I'm not the kind of guy who believes everything that is printed, but I think this guy makes some great points. Here is the link. All I've EVER asked is what I asked in a previous post. If you LOVE IE, and don't understand why some of us LOVE Mozilla/Firefox... just try it. I've tried IE. I use IE every day as a matter of fact. There is a part of me that can't put to words why IE makes my skin crawl, so I won't burden you with transparent arguments. I'm a Linux geek.. period. I probably always will be. Open Source has got to be the greatest thing ever. I remember "Public Domain" software from my old Apple days, and its basically the same thing. The reason I say that is so that you can all take what I say, analyze it, and decide for yourself if I'm full of crap or not. Just because I'm pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft does NOT mean that I HATE Microsoft. I respect Bill Gates more than most people in this world (just under the ever-humble Linus Torvalds) Gates is a fantastic humanitarian and philanthropist, and he has advanced the computer industry far beyond what it would have been had it continued down the path it was on before Bill Gates. Again, I only say this so you all can decide if I'm worth listening to or not. I hope you all continue this conversation. I'll put in my two cents.. or 4 or 5 or $6,238. I just want it to be productive.

I thought I had something else to say... guess not.

Okay.. Don't make this into something its not. In logical argumentation, we would call what you just stated a "Straw Man." Arguing that standards in web development are necessary cannot be refuted by saying that government taxation on the Internet is wrong. We aren't arguing that Internet taxation is wrong. To start, the browsers ARE shipped with operating systems and new computers. They are shipped with most Linux distros, and you can get a brand-spanking new Linux machine from Wal-Mart's website. But do you think Microsoft would let some business man buy copies of vanilla Windows, package in OpenOffice.org, and Firefox, and turn around and sell them for a profit? Hell, no. That was the whole point of the monopoly litigation. Do you think Dell is going to risk losing the rate they get from Microsoft on Windows licenses, just because they think Firefox is better? Hell, no. Well, I'm glad you can dish out CSS like its no big deal. Many developers would consider creating a site that uses all CSS and no tables to be a pretty difficult task. But on the rest of your point, I agree ENTIRELY. You and I don't care about bells and whistles. As a matter of fact, I'm starting up a for-profit website as we speak, and one way that I'm striving to be competitive is to reduce overhead, and holding readers attention by providing a simple, streamlined page. But, you and I like it one way, My teenage sisters value something completely different in a web page. Ahh, yes. You are correct, but don't imply that your point is any more valid, simply because a majority of people other than him disagree. Woah.. that is a completely baseless argument. Its an "Appeal to Consequences." You are saying that "Hey.. there are an abundance of security flaws in IE, but not as many high-profile flaws in Mozilla. It must be because IE is the market leader." Not so. You can't argue a point you can't POSSIBLY support. The fact is, Microsoft IS the market leader, and IE DOES have security problems. You can't transfer any conclusions over to Mozilla/Opera/etc. And to further refute your argument, people ARE looking for their flaws. Those people are all over the open source development community. Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org and click on the "view bugs already reported today." When I checked, 66 had been reported today. How can you possibly argue that nobody is looking for flaws? Okay, yet another fallacy here. This is an appeal to authority. Simply because Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar corporation says NOTHING about their prudence in tracking down bugs and security flaws. Who would I rather have? Personally, I would rather have someone who cared, tracking down bugs. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't care. I'm just saying that that is my preference. Besides, you are applying the entire wealth of Microsoft to the IE browser. Just because they have hundreds of developers, and billions of dollars does not mean that all of those resources are allocated towards making IE a better browser. And addressing "EVERY singe securtiy issue" doesn't mean a thing. That just means that known bugs are fixed. Furthermore, that is implying that other browsers just don't care about security issues in their browsers. That isn't the case either. I'm not heartless. I'll tell you when I agree with something you say, and this is one of those cases. Better compliancy does not equate to a better browser for the masses. And, if your development methodology is to develop for the market share, then yes.. that is a massive task. I didn't say you were wrong for using IE. And examples have been given. If you want examples of how Mozilla is better than native IE, just look at the tabbed browsing, and built in pop-up blocking and Google bar. Sure, there are probably things you can argue that set IE ahead of Mozilla, but it you wanted proof... well.. there it is. And don't cite the enhancements as a source. We are talking about the native browsers here. As I said before, Microsoft won't allow competition within the Windows arena. Okay, so I inserted a little editorial comment. You are right. You like what you like, I like what I like. Point taken. This is true, but your statement doesn't lend any credibility to your argument. The facts are 1.) There are tens of thousands, if not more, viruses/trojans/etc for Windows. 2.) According to the CEO of a top Linux antivirus company, there are less than 100 known viruses for Linux. So, inarguably there are more security issues with Windows. You can't claim that its because Microsoft is more popular. That point isn't supportable. Maybe thats the case, but maybe Linux is just more secure. Or, maybe people don't want to write viruses for Linux. Or maybe its weather patterns.. who knows? Bravo. I applaud that. I agree that software choices are wholly personal. True, but don't imply that its Microsoft's clout that is making them the scapegoat. It could be anything. AAAAHHH!!! Now, pay attention!! This is where I really have a problem. This is exactly why we need to argue. Its the best thing we can possibly do. The Internet has a memory. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday some Microsoft exec or some Mozilla programmer may read this post, and get some good ideas on how to advance the industry. We need to saturate the Internet with discussions like this to let the people who develop our software know that we aren't content. They will realize what we are complaining about, and we'll find new things to complain about. Its natural, and its necessary.

In my experience, Mandrake is the best beginner's distro, unless you want to plunk down money for lycoris, lindows, or xandros. But, I've never tried MEPIS.

Heh.. thanks. Actually, now that I look at it, your little uptime thing at the bottom makes me laugh. Your record is 4 days? I've got linux computers running in my house with an uptime of months. Just to give back a little to all you IE people. I will tell you the ONE thing that I hear as a complaint about Firefox - When you first open the browser, it takes a little longer to open than IE. Big deal. You can actually modify Firefox so that a little remains in memory, so it'll load as quickly as IE. I don't mean page load time. I mean program load time.

Oh, boy.. Hope I can keep track of everything I was going to say. Web Browsers: I agree completely that IE is a horrible browser, and that Mozilla/Firefox/Opera/Just About Anything Else/etc. is the better way to go. I've demoed firefox (I use 0.9) to numerous people, and not one of them has gone back to IE. I personally only use IE in development, because its the browser that is installed on all of the computers in the company I do web development for. As far as all of those "enhanced" versions of IE that add tabbed browsing are concerned, it all still comes down to the same thing. You're just putting a bag on the side of IE. Its got a horrible base. What a bad idea, writing a piece of software that enhances another piece of software that hasn't been developed in 3 years. Its following the Microsoft way of doing things (building OSes off of the faults of their previous OSes.) Eventually, you are going to hit a brick wall. I'm not here to claim that standards compliancy is better, or that using a browser which properly displays more pages is better. IE is just an insult. Microsoft gained their 95% market share, won the browser war, stepped back and said "screw you all. We are allocating our resources to win other wars." It was a scorched earth business model. While most of the world is suckling at Microsoft's corporate teat, the rest of the Internet world is maturing, but we have to yank the rest of you away from Microsoft's buxom to make any forward progress, and to allow the Internet community to grow together. How are we supposed to implement new standards? How are we supposed to create new websites that utilize new features? The fact of the matter is, IE users have to deal with the fact that their browser isn't standards compliant. Everyone else has to deal with the fact that some developers dont have the time, or are too lazy to make their websites viewable in all browsers. 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. There are more things to base your choice on. As long as they have a 95% market share, Microsoft won't give us a better version. And to whoever said that Mozilla's bookmarks suck, have you taken a look at Firefox's (0.9) bookmark system? Its beautiful. Operating Systems: Its been noted that this is off topic, but some things were said that I need to refute. One suggestion is that Windows is somehow inherently more easy to use than anything else out there, and thus, they supply a need to the general public. You are fooling yourselves if you think this is why most desktop PCs run a version of Windows. Fact of the matter is, if you want ease of use, an attractive GUI, and something that is quick to learn and seems more natural to use, then hands down, without a doubt, Mac OS is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows and Linux (which is a misnomer. Linux is just the OS. Criticizing the UI is criticizing KDE/Gnome/etc). An old person or a child would be able to understand a Mac before they would be able to understand Windows or Linux. As a matter of fact, the original Apples were designed to be educational. So that children could easily master the computer as quickly as an adult. If you think Linux can't run Win32 files, again, you are wrong. There is a wonderful program for linux called "wine" that allows Windows programs to run. Specifically, there is a branch of the wine tree called WineX by Transgaming, which supports DirectX 9. It can run Warcraft 3, Max Payne 2, etc. The first time I ever tried WineX I was running Quake 3 at higher frame rates than in Windows (even when it was viewed in a window instead of full-screen.) The idea that Windows is better for the average person is just rediculous. I've had people, who are just barely computer literate, come up to me and ask for Linux because they can't deal with all of the viruses/spyware/adware/etc that cripples Windows machines. I run Red Hat 9.0 on my machine, and I've NEVER had a virus/trojan/spyware/adware. Most people just want an easy to use machine to check email, surf the Internet, write up some documents, and chat on IM. EVERY popular operating system provides that now. I'm not saying that anyone here should use Windows/Linux/Mac. I'm just saying, come up with some better reasons. The reason most people use IE, and the reason most people use Windows, and the reason most people have been lead to believe that an inconsistant, security flaw infested OS like WinXP is somehow the greatest thing to hit the desktop since 95, is because Microsoft is just REALLY REALLY good at business. The browser war hasn't ended. The OS war hasn't ended. They probably never will. Don't get suckered into the groupthink that propetuates the Microsoft monopoly. Be critical of what you use. Try out Firefox. Try out OpenOffice.org. Try out Linux. Try out Macintosh. Try out The Gimp. And be FAIR. You didn't learn how to get the most out of your Windows machine running IE in just one or two days. Give another piece of software the benefit of the doubt, and you may just like what you see. And again.. before anyone flames me. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU SHOULD USE. I'm simply saying, try looking at what you use a little more critically. Then, you'll either decide that it sucks, or you'll have a better argument for why you really use it.