[Javascript] Debugger

[Hakan M.]

How would that help me?

John Warner wrote:

>Well, you could always set your sites up such as to refuse to load if an
>MS product appears with the request.
>
>John Warner
>mailto:john at jwarner.com
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu 
>>[mailto:javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu] On Behalf Of Hakan M.
>>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:24 AM
>>To: [JavaScript List]
>>Subject: Re: [Javascript] Debugger
>>
>>
>>Gee, did I hit a hotspot there?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Well, if you have a look at MSXML, you see that it it is 
>>>      
>>>
>>actually one
>>    
>>
>>>of the better XML engines. As for PNG, I have a hard time 
>>>      
>>>
>>justifying 
>>    
>>
>>>that deficiency... 
>>>      
>>>
>>You have a "hard time" justifying the lack of PNG-support, 
>>eight years 
>>after the promise was made to support it? Do you even KNOW what the 
>>PNG-format is, and its benefits over existing (GIF) web 
>>graphic formats? 
>>For someone so furiously defending multinational megacorporations and 
>>their lack of interest in the end user developers, you sure 
>>seem to have 
>>a funny view on the GIF patent issues.
>>
>>MSXML is not the browser, my friend. It's a ActiveX-plugin for the 
>>browser. The browser doesn't even understand the 
>>xhtml-mimetype. Sure, 
>>Microsoft have great, huge libraries for anything you want, 
>>but that has 
>>nothing to do with their browser. I have a really hard time 
>>justifying 
>>the use of plugins/htc-files to get normal browser behaviour, 
>>but maybe 
>>that's just me.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>They don't put an army of developers on it because there is 
>>>      
>>>
>>simply no 
>>    
>>
>>>way they could charge money for the product (not now, after 
>>>      
>>>
>>Netscape's 
>>    
>>
>>>death and all), and without any possibility to bring in money, they 
>>>see no reason to further develop it unless they can extend 
>>>      
>>>
>>it in ways 
>>    
>>
>>>that in turn allows them to make money.
>>>      
>>>
>>I didn't say they SHOULD put an army of developers on it. I said they 
>>HAVE an army of developers. PNG-support, for example, would take one 
>>developer a few hours with one of the many free (but stable!) 
>>PNG-libraries to implement. They don't need the army of developers to 
>>implement one little thing, that would make the browser much more 
>>appriciated. If they're not doing this deliberately, it only 
>>leaves us 
>>with one choice - their developers don't have the skills to do it.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>If it weren't for Microsoft, you would not at all have the 
>>>      
>>>
>>CSS specs 
>>    
>>
>>>to the level you have it today. They can make a push for a 
>>>      
>>>
>>technology, 
>>    
>>
>>>sometimes. And if you haven't noticed, ie6w is three years 
>>>      
>>>
>>old, which 
>>    
>>
>>>makes XHTML a fringe technology that was only a year old at 
>>>      
>>>
>>release time.
>>
>>I think what you're saying is "if it weren't for the browser wars and 
>>Netscape, Microsoft wouldn't have cared about the end user 
>>developers at 
>>all". XHTML became a RECOMMENDATION in 2000, the first draft 
>>appeared in 
>>1998, if I recall correctly.
>>
>>I can counter by saying "If it weren't for Microsoft, we 
>>would not have 
>>these browser incompatibilities we have today." It makes just 
>>as much sense.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The moving of the browser development into the OS 
>>>      
>>>
>>development group in 
>>    
>>
>>>Longhorn suggests that they are now considering the browser to be a 
>>>core technology of the underlying OS instead of just a separate 
>>>application, but perhaps it means that some of the OS development 
>>>money goes to the browser development group. That the Longhorn 
>>>versions we have seen so far are running ie6.05w instead of ie7w 
>>>speaks against that, however. 
>>>      
>>>
>>They are NOW considering that? So IE is currently not a core 
>>technology 
>>of Windows? Ever guessed why the patches for IE are along the 
>>lines of 
>>"prevent any newbie hacker from any part of the world to take 
>>complete 
>>control over your computer and wife" instead of "added correct 
>>calculation of margins"? Ever guessed why you can't run older 
>>versions 
>>of IE on new versions of Windows (you can, but not the way it's 
>>"supposed" to be run)
>>
>>IE is not in control over I/O operations on kernel level, sure, but 
>>anything that exposes the operating system to such a massive range of 
>>attacks by only being installed is taking enough part in the 
>>OS, if you 
>>ask me. It's funny that you think this is a GOOD thing.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I'm tired of Microsoft bashing when the arguments are 
>>>      
>>>
>>With an audience like you, who needs better arguments.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Javascript mailing list
>>Javascript at LaTech.edu
>>https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Javascript mailing list
>Javascript at LaTech.edu
>https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript
>
>.
>
>  
>