Date: 29 Mar 2006 12:26:12 -0800 From: "SmaartAasSaabr" <smaartaassaabrnospaml.com> Subject: Re: [Saab_c900] saab tool page updated
Dave Hinz wrote: > On 29 Mar 2006 14:58:37 GMT, sweller <swellernospamch.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > Dave Hinz wrote: > > > >> That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so > >> you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who > >> can't be bothered to test his site properly, go for it. The fact is, > >> you have to go out of your way to make something not work in browsers > >> other than IE. > > > I don't use IE, never said I did; now who's being deliberately dim? > > What does that have to do with badly written webpages? My point stands > regardless of what's on your desktop. Bad web developers are the > problem, not how a standards-compliant browser renders them. > > >> OK, great. I use Opera when I'm testing encryption settings on > >> webservers. Not real fond of it otherwise, for reasons I'm not going to > >> bother to go into because of course you'll tell me I've got that wrong > >> too somehow. > > > I'd actually be interested why as you're not the only person who's said > > they don't get on with it. I always liked it and have paid for it from > > version 5. > > I paid a while ago too, maybe 2 years ago or so, because I was using it > for those encryption tests and I figured I should thank them with money. > But it just never turned into a daily-driver for me, so to speak. > > > >> > As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous > >> > "Firefox or Death!" approach. > >> > >> You're using quote marks there, which implies that it's a quote. > >> That's why they're called quote marks, you see. I never made such a > >> statement, so kindly refrain from trying to be my spokesman. Thanks. > > > > It's a quote but not necessarilly yours. > > Riiiiight. So word games then. Loverly. > > >> This has nothing to do with your "idealogical purity" theory, it's > >> simply a matter of functionality. I can get to everything I need to > >> with firefox, and I see no reason to inflict IE and it's inherent > >> security problems, usability problems, and so on, upon myself. I just > >> don't need it for everyday web browsing. If you can't get something to > >> work with firefox, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Or maybe we > >> just go to entirely different sites, who knows. > > > Firefox is a good alternative and makes migrating from IE very easy and > > unthreatening for the average user but I always found it clunky looking > > and just, well, crappy. It's one of those subjective things. That and > > back to the original point of it balking on more websites than was > > helpful. Would you like a car with wheels that bend very easily when hitting potholes?
