The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: 29 Mar 2006 13:24:01 GMT
From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net>
Subject: Re: [Saab_c900] saab tool page updated


On 29 Mar 2006 06:30:03 GMT, sweller <swellernospamch.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > Dave Hinz wrote: > >> So, Firefox is "pretty crappy", because it can't render broken webpages >> as well as Opera? Wow. Way to lose focus on the problem there sparky. > > "I deny myself access to information to maintain my idealogical purity". > It's almost Sovietesque ... You've once again missed the point completetly. Almost like it's intentional; a parody of someone being remarkably dense. >> (shrug) most of the stuff that isn't compliant is someone's special >> effects rather than actual content. > Blimey, you're now sounding all 1997 ... 1997? Yeah, there were people putting stupid things into webpages then too, what's your point? > You're also wrong. It's not special effects or cutesy bullshit it's > simply easier and quicker, unfortunately, for web designers to take the > easy option (time is money and all that) and only cater for 80% of the > browser market; so I have to work round them. 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. It's no longer a case of "Oh, I didn't know there were others" (always a lie, just more so now), it's a case of willful disregard of that market or audience segment. > Opera does this slickly Firefox doesn't. Both are free. One is better: > simple really. 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. > As I said if its commercial that's their loss but the vast majority of > the stuff I want to look at isn't and most of the big players work with > any browser (which explains why they may be big players). I honestly can't think of the last time I tried to do something with firefox and it didn't work. Maybe you just need help with plugins or something. > 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. >> > I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's >> > easier" to take an IE only line. >> Great. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters. Don't forget >> your security updates. > I think you may be blinded by both your Linux OS (I see you use Slrn) and > your idealogical purity here. I think you may be making a boatload of assumptions. The system I use for an internet gateway, is a linux box. My desk at home has a mac. In the workshop I've got a few sun and SGI boxes. At work I admin ~500 systems with a team, and in the last week I've worked on, let's see...hpux, aix, sco, solaris, suse, redhat, ...um, I think that's all. 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. > Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - 5 years ago that was sortof true, if you were a user-level person who doesn't 'grok' Unix. These days, systems like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and others, make the install process painless, and the suite of tools is complete. > Incidentally IME of both Suse and Red Hat the security updates came thick > and fast for them too. Of course. Is this the point where we need to talk about exposure, risk, and magnitude of security releases, or can we just stipulate that Windows is a screen door when it comes to security, because of it's inherent design flaws? The '86 c900 is leaking oil. They all do that. That's how you know it's got oil in the engine.

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]