Mozilla 0.9.1 out

[Technoid]

Some hickup caused 2 extra post's.

Mozilla crached again in under 5 minutes since the last chrash.

That makes 3 crashes within a 15 minute period since that damned "Talkback" software reared its ugly head!

I have now disabled it!

If mozilla behawes now I will take it will stay off!

I might enable it again to see if it kills stability...

[This message has been edited by Technoid (edited 10 June 2001).]

[Technoid]

This was the last straw!!

Either I download a Talkback free version or I'l continue to use 0.8.1!!

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">They've done if for years, time and time again. </font>

Show me where there are hard standards that need to be followed that only MS has rights to.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I tend to agree but that won't stop MSFT from concentrating their resources on that effort.</font>

Be happy they are trying to win an unwinnable war, because the more of their resources they throw at this the less they have to monopolize other areas.

Rags

[xortam]

"I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." I'm under the impression that you were responding to my statement: "MSFT will play along when they have to and lock you into their own solutions once they can." You respond:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Show me where there are hard standards that need to be followed that only MS has rights to.</font>

I'm referring to MSFT playing the standards game when they have to (e.g. Java, HTML, LDAP, etc.) and locking you into their own proprietary solutions and unapproved extensions to standards when they can (e.g. MSFT JVM, HTML, ADSI.) MSFT's intent is to get people to develop to their proprietary solutions so they can control the content and charge premiums to supply services.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Be happy they are trying to win an unwinnable war, because the more of their resources they throw at this the less they have to monopolize other areas.</font>

As I've said before, I have no love for MSFT. I avoided developing for their platforms for 15 years. I finally switched over briefly to develop a Directory Service solution under W2K (then Beta 1 & 2) because of my interest in that area (NDS, LDAP, X.500 and such).<hr><TABLE BGCOLOR=Aqua><TR><TD><Font-weight="+1"><font COLOR=Blue>^<font COLOR=Navy>¶@/\/\</font></Font-weight></TR></TD></TABLE>

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." </font>

Watch the movie again, it's "What we have here..." but anyhow, if you would read what I asked, then maybe you would have answered my question, or at least come up with something a bit better. Hang on, let me explain a little.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">originally posted by me:Show me where there are hard standards that need to be followed that only MS has rights to.</font>

What I am asking for is something that WE HAVE TO USE, that MS has the only rights to support.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">originally posted by xortam in response to my above quoted questionI'm referring to MSFT playing the standards game when they have to (e.g. Java, HTML, LDAP, etc.) and locking you into their own proprietary solutions and unapproved extensions to standards when they can (e.g. MSFT JVM, HTML, ADSI.) MSFT's intent is to get people to develop to their proprietary solutions so they can control the content and charge premiums to supply services. </font>

NONE of those things have to be used. In fact, I don't know of any reputable coders who would be caught using them. Their extensions to HTML are not proprietary, although I am sure they wish they could make them so AFA MSJava, et'al, well it's not required for use....anywhere. If they want to add value to their browser, and they think that users want some proprietary features that only MS products offer, who cares? The developers will stick to the general standards. This has been proved time and time again. If MS stops adding support for the features that are in acceptance, then IE will die....then you can rejoice. But let's use our common sense here. MS's proprietary offerings have absolutely nothing to do with why Netscape sucked. Netscape fell for the same reason that 3dfx fell, they got stagnant and refused to flow with change. Again, if you want to show me a single standard that has been widely adopted that Netscape, or any other browser for that matter, couldn't use or implement in some form, AND remember--it has to be a standard that is in widespread use, show it (you have failed to do this).


Rags

[xortam]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Rags:
Watch the movie again, it's "What we have here..." ...</font>

You know, that's what I posted at first and then I went back and changed it. O.K.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
... if you would read what I asked, then maybe you would have answered my question, or at least come up with something a bit better.</font>

As I was typing the response I was starting to get the sense that was what you were trying to say. Its not that they are in fact locking anyone in but that is there intent for the reasons I stated. I've found that when you question decision makers about your concern to develop SW that addresses the enterprise versus MSFT specific solutions, I sometimes get the alarming answer "MSFT will be the enterprise." I certainly don't agree.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> ... The developers will stick to the general standards. ...</font>

Its many times not a decision left to the developers. The reality of doing business in the MSFT market is that you have to kow-tow to certain requirements which includes exploiting their proprietary solutions. Marketing requirements come in that include MSFT certification which sometimes dictate these non-standard implementations. There's also direction from management to make nice with MSFT so your company can gain preferable treatment for this lucrative market. Product development decisions sometimes have little bearing on sound engineering.

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Its many times not a decision left to the developers. The reality of doing business in the MSFT market is that you have to kow-tow to certain requirements which includes exploiting their proprietary solutions. Marketing requirements come in that include MSFT certification which sometimes dictate these non-standard implementations. There's also direction from management to make nice with MSFT so your company can gain preferable treatment for this lucrative market. Product development decisions sometimes have little bearing on sound engineering.</font>

You see, We are talking browsers, not other software. No matter how much MS would like, they will not be able to control the means of access to the internet. You are referring to other things such as Office and Windows, in which case I agree totally with you, but an internet browser is not the same thing, and it's not happening like that.

Rags

[xortam]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Rags:
You see, We are talking browsers, not other software.</font>

Ahhhh, I see. I stopped talking about strictly browsers back at my 16h05 post. My point was that in general, MSFT has a vested interest in controlling content so they can gain premiums on services. That's why they got into Media (MSNBC) and as an ISP (MSN) and why they pervert standards enough to entice developers to write to their platform, arguing that its a richer experience. They were only interested in Java because the market was demanding it but they tried to sway developers to exploit their extensions again for that richer experience and again in an attempt to gain control. Sun wouldn't have any of it and called MSFT on the carpet for not abiding by the Java license agreement. MSFT realized that they weren't able to succeed in this Java perversion and decided to drop support for the platform. Now other browser companies don't necessarily have that same business model. I don't know much about their business except for perhaps selling some advertising and I guess Netscape tried to sell portal services. Browsers never interested me much and developing HTML code seemed more like an "Information Developer" (Technical Writer) function.

[TnT]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by HollyBerri:
Thus, the user (me, for instance), had to use IE, because the pages said user was visiting simply could not be viewed in NS, and would often say so on the splash page in fact.</font>

I guess I had a different way of dealing with this. I kept using NS and if something wouldn't work I'd just say f-it and move along. Then I'd go to my friends comp and a page wouldn't load in IE, and again I'd say f-it.

As for not being able to do some stuff in Mozilla right now I haven't had these problems. I'm using just .9 though, but I'm surfing and using keys as I've always had and nothings missing. Only prob is that the bookmark folders within folders display off the screen.