What's New With IE, Firefox, Opera

What's New With IE, Firefox, Opera


Shouldn't be that complicated
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Blue Mushroom (466106) Alter Relationship on Tuesday November 29, @01:44AM (#14135951)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 17, @11:40AM)
I would define a W3C compliant browser as a broswer that correctly displays all webpages that pass the W3C validator. If any possible compliant page does not correctly display in the browser, the browser is not 100% compliant. Any broswer that can't correctly display any possible compliant page should only be called partially compliant. Why should it be more complicated than that?

That probably means that no broswer will ever be 100% compliant, but so what? Just call the browsers what they are so nobody gets misled into thinking they are gauranteed to always see a page correctly if that page passes the validator.

As far as browsers that implement features outside the standard, I don't understand why the purists would want to count that against the browser's compliancy status. The purpose of a standard is to help maintain interoperability between two independently managed operations. To accomplish this, all a standard has to do is specify a feature set that assures the minimum amount of functionality needed for correct interoperability. Assuming that additional features do not conflict with the specified design parameters of the standard, there is no way that including the extra features would prevent the browser from successfully displaying a validated page. With browser/page interoperability gauranteed, the standard has served its stated purpose, thus additional restrictions would accomplish nothing.

Anybody see standards as having a different purpose?
Why would anybody (aside from the developer trying to make a product seem better than it is) want to call a browser compliant if it only correctly displays a subset of all possible validated pages?
Why would anybody insist on the noncompliant label for a browser that implemented extra features that had no effect on a validated page?
--

"Humanity lives and dies by its capabilities of communication, or lack thereof."
==============

Re:Whatever

(Score:5, Insightful)

by Comics (464489) on Tuesday November 29, @12:38AM (#14135726)
(http://www.geekrants.com/)

Arguably, Microsoft has a commercial interest in Internet Explorer and look at how that has worked out..
==============

Re:Whatever

(Score:5, Insightful)

by DigitumDei (578031) on Tuesday November 29, @02:03AM (#14136012)
(http://webcoderplus.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 02, @07:11AM)

I'd say that arguably, after netscape died, they had no commercial interest in IE. It was the only browser, they could do what they wanted (or in this case do nothing).

It is only recently that the renewed competition, and the addition of more complex web apps, that has brought IE back into the MS managers sights, and thus back as a commercial interest. I think we will see over the next year, just how much commercial interest in IE will speed up it's development.

--
Web Coder + [webcoderplus.com]
===============

Galeon [sourceforge.net] recently released v 2.0. Considering that most

/. users claim to hate windows and love linux, it saddens me that such a feature rich browser gets completely ignored.

http://galeon.sourceforge.net/Main/GaleonRelease20

http://www.alternativebrowseralliance.com/why.html

==================

Re:Whatever

(Score:5, Insightful)

by RoLi (141856) on Tuesday November 29, @05:13AM (#14136520)
(http://f1-facts.com/)

Microsoft has a commercial interest in Internet Explorer

Actually, Microsoft has a lot of commercial interest in the Win32-platform (Windows-licenses, MSDN-subscriptions, courses, etc.) which is of course endangered by the Web.

That is why they wanted to establish their own network (MSN) with their own proprietary protocols and their own proprietary formats. They failed miserably and now MSN is just a normal ISP and uses Unix protocols and formats like anybody else. Microsoft did not "win" the Browser war, the whole Internet Explorer thing was damage control. After Netscape was dead, Microsoft was stuck with something they didn't really want. (An IE that was dominating but was running with open protocols and formats.) The better IE is, the more attractive the web becomes in comparison to Win32. So of course they let it rot, making IE better would have been counterproductive.

After Firefox started to destroy domination by becoming so big that it can no longer be ignored (over 10% and rising is too much to ignore, even if it's still a minority) therefore Microsoft fell back to damage control mode.

However, there are several reasons why IE will NEVER regain total domination:

• IE is de-facto dead (or dying) on the Mac
• While the IE to Firefox transition is quite easy (bookmarks get copied, etc.) the reverse is actually quite troublesome as Microsoft is quite arrogant and probably won't import FF bookmarks. Also of course FF-extensions don't run on IE, therefore IE7 might be able to slow further losses to FF, but it most likely won't be able to get back many users already lost.
• Smartphones and other wireless devices are slowly getting more important and most of them don't run IE and never will. Even those few windows mobile users will run some browser that might be called IE but will not have much in common with the PC-version.
• Embedded devices will become more important in browsing, especially the PS3.
• Also, Linux adoption on the desktop is progressing. Many governments all around the world are adopting Linux, especially in South America and Europe.
• IE has already lost domination and IE-only websites are becoming rarer already. Just one or 2 years ago, many people tried out Mozilla or Firefox, but were put off with IE-only websites. Quite a lot of those will try 1.5 and later 2.0 and even though the product is pretty much the same, there are much fewer IE-only sites around and therefore they are much more likely to stay with FF. Also, once a webmaster has established a standard-compliant website, it's unlikely that he reprograms it to be IE-only again, that just doesn't make any sense.

All these factors combined will prevent IE from regaining significant marketshare and will cause further decline for IE in the long term that might be slowed but not stopped by Microsoft.
=================

Re:Regardless of which.....

(Score:5, Interesting)

by Nik13 (837926) on Tuesday November 29, @01:37AM (#14135934)
(http://2130706433/)

Being standards compliant is one of the most important factors indeed. However, there can be a little more to it than that.

-Security. That alone is a reason to NOT use IE. Worst piece of unsecure code Microsoft EVER made. See the newest Javacript exploit for it? Affects fully patched browsers.... Just like we had one not long ago using IFrames instead. It seems like there's always a way to get past all the "security" of fully updated/fully locked-down IE no matter what. It's by FAR the main reason why spyware is an issue at all (the users are also partially to blame though). They can keep updating it or copy features like tabs, I truly don't care, I'll never use it! (If it didn't break other stuff, I'd remove it completely)

-Features. Firefox may have high memory usage, but the extensions... I only wish something like that would exist for other browsers (although I also wish some of those were built-into Firefox/didn't need an extension for it). It's addictive. The Web developer toolbar, AdBlock (with a good list), Bugmenot, FlashBlock, gestures, Forecastfox, Foxytunes, SwitchProxy, LiveHTTPHeaders, GreaseMonkey (and some scripts), JS debugger, Checky, ColorZilla, XForms, EditCSS, Copy Plain Text, LoremIpsum Generator, StumbleUpon, DictionarySearch, Cookie Culler, etc. Not to mention other niceties like XUL apps (like the totally wicked DevEdge MultiBar and several others), usercontent.css, bookmark management/sync utils, the about:config page and other such things. I wish Opera (or another decent browser) would support them too...

Anyways. I prefer Firefox based on the features/extensions, but really, as long as it's NOT the blue E... Opera, Konqueror, Netscape, Galeon, Safari, etc... They're all good browsers.

--
There's no place like 2130706433

===================

Daters Sue Matchmaking Sites for Fraud [& WTC Fraud ]

Online Daters Sue Matchmaking Web Sites for Fraud

I belong to Match.com
(Score:4, Interesting)
by RonUSMC (823230) Alter Relationship on Sunday November 20, @01:45PM (#14076916)
I belong to Match.com here in Los Angeles and I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel. If you have a decent tech job and do not have the inclination to hide heads in the freezer or stroke a rabbit's paw and call it "my precious" you will score.

The amount of decent looking people out there that just want someone that is 'normal' is dumbfounding. The majority of men in LA either have an ego that you need to help through a door or demands that even Stalin would shy away from. You also get your small bit of crazies, but I really enjoy those because it actually gives me a reason to blog.
==========================

Old saying holds true

(Score:5, Insightful)

by saskboy (600063) on Sunday November 20, @01:41PM (#14076898)
(http://www.abandonedstuff.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 25, @01:07PM)

99% of the things you can pay for on the Internet are a scam if you don't get something tangible out of it that you can hold in your hands. And even then, there's things you can hold which are still a scam like drugs.

Don't spend what you can't afford to lose.

That being said though, I'm pissed off at Yahoo now, since I signed up for a month to try it out and was possibly scammed since someone had "messaged" me before I signed up, but never messaged after I contacted them back. Not even a note to blow me off, which I found strange, but figured she'd found someone else or my reply wasn't interesting. While I accepted that my shortlived subscription was just a Blind Date that was a bit expensive and failed, now I feel victimized too. There's no way to know if she was a Yahoo shill, or just some woman that didn't find me interesting. Either way it's not a happy outcome. There can't be too many happy online daters out there in cyberland today upon hearing this news.

Fortunately I've since been tipped off to the existence of 100% free sites like http://www.craigslist.com/ [craigslist.com] and http://www.plentyoffish.com/ [plentyoffish.com] which don't require you to pay. Plenty of Fish makes their money from Google advertising instead of scamming people with fake people.

========================

Complaints from female friends

(Score:5, Insightful)

by phorm (591458) on Sunday November 20, @01:42PM (#14076903)
(http://www.phormix.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19, @11:08AM)

I have complaints from female friends that online dating sites will often retain the profiles despite them having removed their accounts (to inflate the number of purported users, I'd assume). On the other hand, many of the sites I've used (lavalife being the biggest, also one of the above accused) have enabled me to meet many 'real' people.

For all those seeking, I would offer advice. Don't look for love on the internet. Look for people of similar interest to hang around with, if things work out it might go further. If you go expecting something more however, you'll probably seem way too needy and throw off a negetive vibe.

--
Allowing users to run as root is like sticking drivers with a class 5 license in the pilot seat of a 747 - phorm
===================

...had a cough cough "friend" cough cough who tried two of these sites. We'll just call the Hatch and Rahoo. Anyhow, this "friend" would get emails back that said "hey, if you want to see me naked visit this other site LINK."
I have, er, my friend has noticed that whenevr his subsciption was about to expire he would suddenly get a ton of "winks" or "flirts" that you have to subscibe to reply to. Could be a coincidence
If you are using these sites, my "friend" would give this advice- when you see a 20 y/o female who is seeking men 18-45 they are usually a fake profile (Not from the provider necessarily, but these "women" usually reply back with a link to their paysite.)
The worst offenders, not that I would know, are the companies that advertise on porn sites. They have nude pics come up of women in the "next town over" or your town (you get these if they know your ip and can tell where you are) and you just know that there aren't 50 nubile young 18-25 y/o women in these towns looking for no strings sex on the net.
=============

In soviet russia...

(Score:5, Funny)

by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday November 20, @03:01PM (#14077315)
(http://www.nodomain.org/)

Women date YOU!!
==============

Online dating - real or scamtastic?

(Score:5, Interesting)

by King_TJ (85913) on Sunday November 20, @03:24PM (#14077445)
(http://home.swbell.net/kingtj)

Actually, I find this lawsuit interesting for a couple of reasons. First, I'm surprised it's taken so long to hear about such a thing. And second, it's interesting to note which companies are involved.

.../... I had a little bit of luck on Craigslist actually, where they let you post free personals. Only problem is, Craigslist seems to be unusually full of singles who act interested, correspond with people daily for a while, and then just vanish. (Both men and women complain about that on there quite a bit.) I think a lot of people just don't take it very seriously since it's free. They're just "fishing" for Mr. or Mrs. Perfect and if you're 80% of what they'd ideally like but not 100%, they "throw you back in the water" and try again.

I think okcupid.com is pretty cool too. But I haven't yet met a woman from it. (There's one gal who emailed me a couple times just to talk politics, since we had that in common... but no interest in actually meeting.) I'm just impressed with how it does the "compatibility scores" and testing, and offers so much for free. It seems like it's *got* to work for somebody. .../...
===============

April 13, 2002 Deconstructing the 911 Coverup

Practically every act of the clowns who now control the White House is an outrage and an insult to intelligence, but Bush and Cheney's attempt to put the squeeze on the investigation of 911 is the most egregious of many loathsome acts. This may be even more outrageous than their thuggish seizure of the White House after losing the election.

CNN reported that both Bush and Cheney personally gave Daschle a leaden tap on the shoulder and warned him to back off. Daschle, wisely, made the requests public, saying, "The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism." Newsweek reported the incident too.

Investigating the attack would take resources AWAY from the war on terrorism?

This is such an affront to the most rudimentary logic it defies comprehension. The Bushes have gotten tremendous mileage out of being incomprehensible, but this may be beyond the limit of acceptability even from a previously docile public.

You have to stop still for a minute to appreciate the colossal arrogance of suggesting a limit to the inquiry into the most horrific assault ever perpetrated on U.S. citizens. How could anyone dare to suggest that an investigation into the failures that led that catastrophe would "divert resources from the war on terrorism"? It should be the foundation of that effort.

It is no use tiptoeing around it, these guys have manipulated 911 from Day One to push their same old agenda. "The war on terrorism," like everything else the Bushes claim disingenuously to be doing, is nothing more than a front for doing exactly what their corporate controllers want, no matter how detrimental it is to the vast majority. Any war on terrorism that does not incorporate a thorough public investigation is a fraud.

Ashcroft and George W. would say, "We didn't say no investigation. We'll have an investigation all right, but we'll be in charge of it. And we'll keep the information we uncover secret, for National Security, of course." This administration, which is transparently an extension of the old gang led by the former CIA director, is inherently anti-democratic, seeking at every turn to thwart democratic processes, to centralize, privatize and monopolize power and resources. Covert action is its stock in trade, a family tradition. The CIA cult of secrecy is the antithesis of democratic processes. The Bush administration maintains its assault on the rights of the majority at a furious pace on many fronts at once, but the Republican elite are always consistent in their preferences: all power and wealth to the richest one percent; let the rest make do with what trickles down, if we're feeling generous.

Since the idea that an all-out investigation would divert resources from the war on terrorism is a ludicrous, desperate ploy, we are left with the question: Why do Bush and Cheney want to limit the investigation? Why indeed? Logic leads inescapably to the proposition that they would not like what such an investigation would uncover. What then might that be?

Is it possible that when the disaster is closely examined, and Americans for the first time are able to soberly contemplate how such a mountain of simultaneous security breaches took place, they may cease to lionize the commander in chief who presided so gaily over the failure? To select one fact out of that mountain of dysfunctions: It was 35 minutes from the second crash at the World Trade Center to the attack on the Pentagon. Thirty-five minutes since millions of average Americans knew the crashes were no accident, and yet the nation's capital, the center of the world's most powerful military, only moments from Andrews Air Force Base where fighters fly in and out at all hours, was defenseless. We were sitting ducks. A quarter of a trillion dollars spent on the military every year and there was no defense of Washington. The first attack in New York may be called a surprise, even though air traffic controllers knew about the hijackings for a long time before the crashes. But the Pentagon attack was no surprise. The average 10-year-old knew by then an attack was underway and had known about it long enough for fighters to fly from Andrews to the Pentagon and back many times over.

Even in the absence of an investigation, basic logic leads to the conclusion that a great many things had to go wrong that day. Many of the reports that have come out raise more questions that the public needs answered, if we are to consider ourselves a democratic nation. Among the most intriguing of a myriad of disturbing reports were those of FBI agents complaining that the Bush administration took steps to limit investigations into Bin Laden before Sept. 11 too. (See The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald)

What can be said in the face of such an outrage? The time for talking is over. Let the investigations begin.

-- David Cogswell
=================

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-20-03/discussion.cgi.53.html
Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare.

But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of "news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the "smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad] lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
-------
.../... Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the Afghani Northern Alliance - a cultishly popular figure within that group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan's ISI - was assassinated by two terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that, throughout the '90's, American leaders such as Clinton, and American companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front), it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed, incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).

So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word "operative", as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in laying the preparations. Once again, John O'Neill serves as an effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this operative clique (which is by no means a "rogue" clique). The FBI and CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For one, Oliver North in the 1980's served as Counterterrorism Chief while he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie - also investigated by Cannistraro). In the late '90's, O'Neill was transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York Counterrorism Office of the FBI - and it was the New York branch which was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 - investigated by O'Neill and reported upon by ABC's John Miller, who was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.