zero0w Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Symantec recomends you to use IE? ................ What I know is that heavy marketing is planned when Firefox reaches 1.0 this summer. Yes, there're some lobbying work to be done here, but it is true that we can make the web safer by encouraging people to try or move to Firefox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 What I know is that heavy marketing is planned when Firefox reaches 1.0 this summer. Yes, there're some lobbying work to be done here, but it is true that we can make the web safer by encouraging people to try or move to Firefox. That's great! I was thinking about burning and handing out free CD's. Although it would be a bit a waste of space. Maybe it will come as part of the OpenCD by then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 hmm zero.... i mentioned the 'nice reasons' perhaps symatec also have a interest in theor customers getitng viri which theior software then traps and quarantines ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) hmm zero....i mentioned the 'nice reasons' perhaps symatec also have a interest in theor customers getitng viri which theior software then traps and quarantines ? Gowator, you're certainly not the first one to make this connection/remark. http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/securi...39116001,00.htm (sorry, I could not find a better link, I know I have read articles about this in the past though). Also, your comment on W3C being legally required is right on the mark. It would not take a lot of (legal) effort to include it in goverment law or directives and it would make a HUGE difference. Only if because people now have a simple answer to the question: "why should I make a decent website": the answer being "because it's the law". And the positive effect for the web and competition would be incredible! But alas, if only things were that simple... Edited June 23, 2004 by Darkelve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Gowator: It looks like Symantec would have to worry about its own destiny even your theory is right: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/06/11...t.antivirus.ap/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 BTW, compliance to W3C standard is another issue, and I am afraid I am no expert here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Gowator: It looks like Symantec would have to worry about its own destiny even your theory is right: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/06/11...t.antivirus.ap/ LOL when you dance with the devil you wait for the music to finish.... MS have a long history of this... OS2/stacker/etc. etc. it shouldnt be a surprise for symantec... MS already took their disk defreg market etc.. (by making there own tools not getting rid of FAT/NTFS fragmentation ) unfortunately they are not seperate issues ... say your company wants to file taxes online and the IRS or whoever insist on IE. The list is endless but the main reason people dont just dump IE is becuase many official goverment sites require it! 99% of these are town halls etc. they arent doing it deliberately any more than Oxfam are they just dont know any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) BTW, compliance to W3C standard is another issue, and I am afraid I am no expert here. Basically if following the W3C recommendations as written is made mandatory in law, in a directive, ... websites cannot use technical lock-in (knowingly or not), since those specs are open and free to use. There is also no reason not to use them anyway them since they were composed by members from the industry and interest groups themselves, including Microsoft. One of the major hurdles with standards-enabled webdesign is the below-average and buggy support of IE for some webstandards, most important of which CSS. Also PNG transarency is a good example here. When people develop websites and test (or even worse: build!) for Explorer only, this below-average standards support, bugs and 'features' such as ActiveX etc. , this is where the trouble for the other browsers, which try to play nice, starts. When following W3C recommendations is made mandatory, this will (mostly) result in good, clean code which every browser with good standards support (most importantly Mozilla, Netscape, Safari and Opera) could interpret and display without problems. Of course, M$ would never allow that to happen because: - it would effectively allow the 'alternative' browsers to compete on a level playing field (any monopolists night mare) - it would painfully demonstrate just how old and buggy IE's machinery really is. But most important of all, it would be good for customers, competition and for progress and innovation on the web. Of course, it would create -initially- extra pressure on web design companies to better educate their personnel, make changes to existing code, ... but in the end it would save those companies a lot of time and trouble because of lean and small code. Maybe I am being a little bit over-simplifying here, but I did not want to go into too much detail. Edited June 23, 2004 by Darkelve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Symantec recomends you to use IE? Not exactly. I got a message saying they could not check my computer because of the browser I was using and that I should use IE. I switched, got the security check carried out and that told me my computer was safe-I have zone alarm free download installed. I presume either they cannot read my computer because of the browser or they want me to use IE. If the first that suggests the browser is reasonbably secure so why should i use their products, if its the second then why should I use their products if they only work with a browser I now use on the odd occasion, apart from that it rather suggestes that they want me to use IE so they can sell me their products. I use Norton utilities which I find invaluable and was favourably disposed, tried macafee equivalent but that wrecked my computer. I find it absurd that I should have to buy a product to detect and correct faults in the operating system and without which my computer regularly becomes unusable. It also annoys me that with IE you need tp buy programmes to stop pop up adverts etc. It's like buying a car and finding out seats are an add on but air conditioning is free to make you feel like you are getting a bargain. Yes in Scotland you can buy cars with air conditioning. Like most sensible people I don't bother with such luxuries i just open the window. Three speed heater fans now they are really something worth having. I shall have a look at Opera, now I have broadband all these things are easily accessible. If I can access tye sites i currently need IE for then goodbye IE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 It doesnt need to be law for private companies either, just public bodies. Noone forces them to use the web but when they do they should do so with good practice. This is like say a govt building requiring wheelchair access etc. The idea is not to discriminate either knowingly or unknowingly. imagine a wheechair bound taxpayer ... who want to pay in person and gets to the IRS office with checkbook only to be told sorry we only accept ablebodied people to pay at the counter ... please go away and pay another way. its ridiculous... if a public body want to offer this service it should be to everyone. companies can do what they want... however if they want to use govt pages then they will need a W3W compliant browser....thus they will see the problems take bbc radio.. they make a net service and do real audio and wmv. classic fm a network i used to listen to (commercial)only does windows so i no longer listen to them, even when back in the UK in my car... its half conscious effort and half I got out of the habit becuase i listen to BBC radio on the web ... The BBC is publically funded and therefore Should be forced to comply .. and thankfully is savvy enough to be one of the best complient sites. (they could teach the uk.gov sites a lot) imagine a company that decides not to use ZIP codes... if they want to fill in a official document chance is they are forced to use a ZIP code because its standard... they cant just invent their own they must follow standards.... W3W is no different... its the standard ... basically give people a genuine choice and let them decide, that democracy but sometimes it needs a helping hand to ensure they get the choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) W3C is really another topic. I read many Mozilla developer's blog, and from what I read I can tell it's not that simple. However, forcing W3C standard as a legal standard is probably not a good way to approach a technology issue. I think it's more like an industry standard. Imagine the CD-Audio or DVD-Video format when it first came out, they were all agreed and supported by the industry group and vendors, and these standards have been working fairly well. The problem is that W3C itself doesn't make browser (unless you count Amaya, but it's more like a Web editor than anything else). So it can be difficult to tell whether the spec W3C come up with is practical to implement, or if that's what the customers (such as online e-commerce site and portals) want. The similar situation can be observed in the OpenGL consortium, but with later, it's not much of an issue because both vendors (nVidia and ATi) are strong so neither can sway the standard overly to his own advantage. Not to mention OpenGL has a much smaller target audience in its content authoring (programming). In any case, W3C is not known to move fast (so is OpenGL spec, as we know); the pace (and demand) of web technology evolution could outpace its bureaucratic decision process. Of course Microsoft has a role in this thru bypassing W3C willfully so it can gain an edge and hold on the web. Nevertheless, it's true that the web is growing at a rapid pace that browser vendors would have to make fast decision on what feature to implement - whether it is in W3C spec or not - as long as it can serve their customers. I know, it is problematic and "pollution" to the web - and it's also why the anti-trust grew so nasty on this IE integrate with OS matter. Anyway, that was the past. The next generation of web technology is now in heat discussion; XUL, XAML, XForms, and many others. Something is different though - this time, the web is much bigger (with many more web sites out there) and hence more difficult to "move" (web content to new standard); also Linux and Apache are gaining on the Web server market. The pace of Mozilla development is also more rapid. If Mozilla and Firefox can do some great marketing, I expect, we can re-gain some balance to the web. Just spread the word, I think we have some great browsers other than IE. :) Edited June 23, 2004 by zero0w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 The point is that its a technology issue.... I'm not suggestng it should be for or against any specific browser just that govt and publically funded websites should work with ALL browsers. If you pay tax for a specific website you should have the right to browse it in whatever OS you want ... Also linux and apache arent gaining. Apache has been number 1 for quite some time and linux as the main platform quite a while but even that isnt important becuase it shouldnt matter if the webserver is on Solaris/AIX or freeBSD ... thats the whole point the pages should be OS independant ...and browser indepentant in so far as they conform to the only standard we have. or if that's what the customers (such as online e-commerce site and portals) want. Im not suggesting 'customers' should be told ... only publicly funded. This is enough to tip the balance.... the real problem is mainly that commercially companies use IE because initially they lack imagination but also because they also need to access say governement sites to fill out forms etc. In this case, mainly becyuase the govt websites tend to be even worse tha commerical ones they need to use IE... so they know their customers have the same restrictions so they make their servers IE overcompatible... MS knows it just needs to make people have to have a reason not to use IE. they have the dominance in borwsers just to control the server market. All they need do is make it an extra click and people stick with IE... just like people dont move to linux because it takes a actual descision and action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) Agree on the government site choosing to support the widest browser choices possible. What I mean about gaining is on the new server shipment and the market share rise (small, but still rising). Web server market is where Microsoft failed to secure dominantly so far. So it can't really extend on HTTP protocol if it doesn't control the Web server market. As for government requiring open (eg. W3C) standard, it is indeed the work we should be pursuing. But generally government isn't really up-to-date about the tech stuff, while businesses really want some extra web features so they can provide greater experience to customers, say, in online shopping, intuitive navigation, reading etc. e-Commerce sites have greater desires to create a rich Web experience than government in my opinion. Edited June 23, 2004 by zero0w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) W3C is really another topic. I read many Mozilla developer's blog, and from what I read I can tell it's not that simple. However, forcing W3C standard as a legal standard is probably not a good way to approach a technology issue. I think it's more like an industry standard. Yes, that's why I also mentioned 'directive', by which I rather mean 'guideline'. Well, it is now, but they should at least officially include it in their drafts and information about web design. Especially if it's for the government. And all those extra features companies want, they usually come with their drawbacks. Instead people could already use existing technologies to obtain certain effects/features, as is excellently demonstrated by the articles of www.alistapart.com Techniques that offer a richer web experience AND do not suffer the possible drawbacks that would rise if a company would just go their own way and invent something new ( like a new tag or something -blink- ;) ) Edited June 23, 2004 by Darkelve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) Just one question, does Dreamweaver produce W3C standard compliant page? Update: Here's an article on Browser Wars 2004: http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2004062303326OPDTSW Edited June 24, 2004 by zero0w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.