Tax the wealthy. Problem solved.

call to boycott IE 7 (microsoft beaten by OSS?)

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47208/47208.html?Ad=1


im with him, the amount of time Ive wasted making IE specific fixes to websites is just unreal.

Why cant these assholes write a decent bloody web browser to save their lives? they are getting their asses kicked by the developers of firefox, safari, *and* opera all of whom, it turns out, have been able to write browsers with much greater levels of standards compliance in a much lesser time frame than Microsoft, the richest IT company on the planet.

I mean come on...*firefox* is eating their lunch when it comes to standards compliance, they are being outprogrammed and out-innovated by OSS....think about it, the project that did everything wrong in terms of rewriting software is now kicking IEs butt all across the internet.

and *im* pissed off because I have to waste my time and the time of my employees supporting IE separately from all the others, because the developers of IE cannot write a standards compliant web browser to save their lives.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
Microsoft doesn't WANT standards compliance. They don't WANT ubiquitous, standard, rich web-content. If web applications become the norm, they lose their desktop monopoly.

Hello?
Permalink muppet 
August 2nd, 2005
Amen.

For some odd reason they chose to release IE7 beta 1 with only a small number of the CSS fixes they're apparently going to add, so I may hold fire for beta 2 before joining the crusade. In theory, though, I'm 100% behind you...
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 2nd, 2005
whaaaaa, whaaaaaa, whinw, whine, cough, cough, wheeze, weeze

yawn....
Permalink OMG You Suck 
August 2nd, 2005
"I have to waste my time and the time of my employees"


You have employees? With your lack of judgement? They should be seriously worried...
Permalink Actively Disengaged 
August 2nd, 2005
Yeah, this kind of annoys me too. And I think its a combo of the reason muppet gave and the burdon of backwards compatabillity.
But on the other hand, why be backwards compatible to non-standard compliance? Perhaps I am wrong.

I also wonder how many of the IE7 team were involved with the previous token versions. Maybe there are a lot of new guys involved.
Permalink Eric Debois 
August 2nd, 2005
Sorry, but effectively IE *IS* the standard. It has 90% market share.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 2nd, 2005
And yet 90% of web developers still bitch about it. So how can that be?
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 2nd, 2005
"IE is the effective standard" is a poor argument and has always been a poor argument. If the majority of cars crumpled up like tissue paper in a crash, that would be "standard" but it wouldn't be correct.
Permalink muppet 
August 2nd, 2005
What a load of crap that article was. Big news ... beta 1 doesn't have all the planned features/fixes. Don't effing use beta 1 then. Boycott IE7, bugger off ... IE7 it isn't even released yet. Guess when a guy has a deadline any old clap-trap will do. The only thing intelligent on the entire page was the link to IEBLOG. That, OTOH, is a good read.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
They've (MS) already stated that even in its final incarnation, IE7 won't fix all (or even most, apparently) of its serious bugs with CSS compliance.
Permalink muppet 
August 2nd, 2005
++PNII
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 2nd, 2005
# Alpha channel in PNG images
# Fix :hover on all elements

Holy fuck it's about fucking God damned time.

Way too fucking late, but about time.
Permalink muppet 
August 2nd, 2005
muppet,

"In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well."

"... by fixing our known bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs and usability problems first, and prioritizing the most commonly-requested features based on all the feedback we've had ..."

not how it sounds to me.
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
" That, OTOH, is a good read."

yep, and if you read it they say fairly clearly that they are not intending to make IE web standards compliant.

which means, as far as I can see, that they are making themselves redundant....why the hell should I continue to spend my money supporting their product?

ok, ok we all know that was a rhetorical question...but this pisses me off..Im spending real time and real money on supporting their web browser and they dont have the common decency to care about making it easy for me to do so. fuck em.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
"You have employees? With your lack of judgement? They should be seriously worried..."

yeah, incredible though it seems. I do. <g> and Im sure they are.

if it helps you to come to grips with the idea, I try *really* *really* hard to hire people a lot smarter than myself.

...actually, its not that hard...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
JHC, help me out here;

"they say fairly clearly that they are not intending to make IE web standards compliant"

Where?
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
read between the lines:

"In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well. "

"I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 ( 2.1, once it&#8217;s been Recommended). I think we will make a lot of progress against that in IE7 through our goal of removing the worst painful bugs that make our platform difficult to use for web developers."


translation:

IE 7 will not be web standards compliant. but hey guys! dont worry! IE 8 might be.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
JHC,

"they say fairly clearly"

then it's

"read between the lines:"

Bwaaahahah, you're a funny guy.
I do see where you're coming from though and I agree, but to a point.
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
Just being picky, but how do you get there from:
"our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate web standards"
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
The key word there is "appropriate"
Permalink muppet 
August 2nd, 2005
appropriate web standards := W3C;
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
"Bwaaahahah, you're a funny guy."


sorry, its clear as a bell to me. if you are determined to read it from the perspective of a stoned possum then thats *your* lookout.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
"For some odd reason they chose to release IE7 beta 1 with only a small number of the CSS fixes they're apparently going to add, so I may hold fire for beta 2 before joining the crusade. In theory, though, I'm 100% behind you..."

After all, they've only had 4 years since the last major release!

That's not enough time to fix anything!
Permalink KC 
August 2nd, 2005
"but how do you get there from:
"our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate web standards" "

read the next sentence:

"I think we will make a lot of progress against that in IE7 through our goal of removing the worst painful bugs that make our platform difficult to use for web developers."


have you always been this stupid, or is today special for some reason?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 2nd, 2005
That is why I wrote my own browser, it took 30 minutes. Works great.
Permalink Berlin Brown 
August 2nd, 2005
Ahhh, your final comment has made everything perfectly clear.
Permalink PNII 
August 2nd, 2005
To be fair, the IE team was reconstituted relatively recently. Prior to that they were blazing a trail of great innovations (stuff like "AJAX" was possible, and then some, on IE many many moons ago), but then Bill saw what a threat web apps were to the desktop monopoly and the team was dispersed throughout the lands, with one team lead to bind them.

Regarding the "IE is the standard" nonsense - even if IE had 99.999% of the web browser market, it still wouldn't be "the standard". The reason is that a large percentage of software professionals, including web developers, don't trust or admire Microsoft (especially given the common knowledge that Microsoft intentionally hobbles web technology to maintain their revenue stream), so even if they run a site that strangely has a 100% IE user-base, they'll still strive to develop a cross browser experience.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 2nd, 2005
PNII:

Seriously though, the browser is a great tool and probably the most used piece of software, but conceptually it is not that exciting. Some people use emacs and lynx for browsing(text oriented browsing).

It would be interesting if FireFox gained a little bit more browser space. It would also be interesting if IE had some plugin support?

Other than that, the browser war is boring. I think the web programming language war is more exciting.
Permalink Berlin Brown 
August 2nd, 2005
Disclaimer - the only association I have with the IE team is being on the internal IE discussion list.

Scylla: huge, integrated code-base; if you change code, you have to make sure all the applications that depend on IE won't break (otherwise you'll be accused of abusing your monopoly power or being incompetent, or both)

Charybdis: for better or worse, large numbers of web sites that will break if you change the broken way you parse HTML, DHTML, CSS, etc. (if you break them, you'll be accused of abusing monopoly power, being incompetent, or both)

Sirens: Large number of web standards that are the ultimate goal (because until you meet them, you'll be accused of abusing monopoly power, being incompetent, or both)

Add in that if you take too long to ship, you'll be accused of simple incompetency.

Finally, for all the Acid2 mavens, may I suggest that since it doesn't test full compliance, Acid2 isn't really a great touchstone. HTML4, CSS1/2, JavaScript, DHTML, and PNG* comprise a large warehouse of standards that browsers need to be in compliance with. Now consider that you're writing a browser and sincerely want to implement all five standards. You would go through the standards, look at the web, draw on your experience, and build a roadmap of what order you're going to implement features in such a way that you can have interim releases that are usable.

Now look at Acid2. It represents a grab-bag full of features that fall at various places on your roadmap. Do you a) disregard the roadmap and pull the Acid2 features forward, even if it screws up your schedule and usability, just so you can point at it and claim victory? Or do you b) ignore Acid2 as the "feature checklist" it is and keep on your roadmap to get to standards compliance in the most efficient manner?

Which would you do, and why?

Philo
Permalink Philo [MSFT] 
August 2nd, 2005
Berlin,

I couldn't agree more.

I am of the opinion that everyone should use Firefox though, actually ... it should be built into the OS!. <g,d&r>
Permalink PNII 
August 3rd, 2005
"Scylla: <snip>

Charybdis: <snip>

Sirens: <snip> "

ahh. all good points.

I *think* you just said that the IE codebase was so large, integrated and unwieldly that it was impossible to change and improve it as fast as teams like those working on Opera, KHTML, FireFox etc?

if thats true you *do* realise that IE will just keep losing share, dont you? FireFox, KHTML, Opera etc will just keep eating your lunch until its all gone.

<g> personally, I cannot wait, not because I have anything against Microsoft particularly (I genuinely do not), not because I believe that IE sucks in itself...just because I am SICK AND TIRED of spending additional funds designing websites for IE *and* everything else.


just out of interest, does the same apply to the rest of Microsoft's products?


(either way, its *really* not much of an excuse for standing still, is it? why not just start from scratch and build a new browser that is, you know, well-designed?

you could just ship them both for a while :)
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
Philo,

With little insight into the global issues here and certainly with some (albeit minimal as well) understanding of the grief the web development folks have to deal with, I fail to see how MS could position itself any differently. They have to fall somewhere between "being accused of abusing monopoly power and being incompetent". IMO, getting closer to the point of "abusing monopoly" would benefit users the most. In the end of course, "or both" will, more often than not, likely be the case. Where would we be without the great MS conspiracy theory.
Permalink PNII 
August 3rd, 2005
I was about to post some points until I saw Philo had posted them already. The Firefox team can move much more rapidly as they know that Firefox is not really a dependency. They can introduce breaking API changes if needed, as no-one is really using them aside from a very small handful of early XUL adopters. IE on the other hand is the foundation for a huge number of products, and if they dropped backward compatibility, it would almost certainly break existing installed applications on end users desktops.

IE therefore has to be more carefully planned, and tested against a much wider scenario base, making the available rate of change (dY/dIE !) much slower. IE is a much bigger platform than just the rendering front end. Whether that is a good thing is another matter, and the discussions about browser/OS integration have been done to death, but the fact remains that MS have to deal with that now.

And that's before you get onto all of the Intranet + MS + Web sites that are designed around the IE quirks and "abilities".

IE isn't going anywhere, so all you web developers out there who are hoping for a reprieve, stop dreaming...
Permalink Andrew Cherry 
August 3rd, 2005
"IE isn't going anywhere,"

<shrug> if you and philo are right then IE can no longer innovate as fast as the others.
Indeed, they have proven that they are unable even to copy others at any reasonable speed.

much to my disappointment I suspect you and philo are right, IE *isn't* going anywhere, and its getting there very slowly indeed.

because of *that* I hope it fades out sooner rather than later, Im sick of supporting it as a platform. Its costing me money.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
It costs all of us who develop for web platforms in one way or another, but sadly it's a cost of business. It's the same for all of our competitors anyway (well, the good ones).

On the plus side, at least it is improving. All the time it's bundled/part of Windows though, it's always going to be a sizable chunk of the equation. A large section of the end user market will never use Firefox or any other alternative, because they never use any software other than what came with the machine.
Permalink Andrew Cherry 
August 3rd, 2005
I've quoted it before and I'll do it again: "If IE has a 90% market share, how did all this other shit suddenly become standard?".

Now, to be a bit less blunt about it, let's pretend that everybody just accepts that in some committee (W3C) we can dictate to the rest of the world what the "standards" for the 2005 fall/winter season will be. Can someone point to the commisions blessed transition plans for getting from the current situation (thousands of apps relying on the current "standard") to the new collection?
Permalink Just me (Sir to you) 
August 3rd, 2005
Why not add a NEW IE, and keep IE6 for those apps that need it. New apps could then shift to relying on IE7, the browse that starts when people double click on "Internet Explorer" can be based on the new control, there are no OS level app-compat issues to worry about, and everyone's a winer.

Heck, MSFT could buy Opera and rebadge it as IE7...

(And they *NEED* to add an _official_ method of supporting more than one version of IE. It can be done with some fiddling, but it makes testing across different browser versions a pain; you either run the risk of breaking your machine with some careless tinkering, or need to dual-boot/use a virtual machine in order to be able to test things against the different flavours of IE.)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
s/winer/winner
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
Philo:

Do you think there is a chance of for two Microsoft browsers. It might be driven by the community with a plugin architecture, maybe even free or opensource. It would be a new browser without the dependencies that you mentioned.

You can market IE7 but beta test a slimmer, lighter webbrowser to appease the developer/CSS fanatics.

My parents, family, friends couldn't care less if IE7 supported CSS.v300, whatever. They will use IE7. But, this bad press may hurt their chances of using it. Business wise, I think this would be an interesting play.

This idea is copyrighted to me (c) 2005.
Permalink Berlin Brown 
August 3rd, 2005
Mozilla had exactly the problems that the IE7 team had, whether to support old Netscape 3 and if so how to do that and concentrate on getting the box model, CSS integration and rendering right.

The answer was quirks mode and quirks mode is used to some extent in IE already. The browser parses on the basis of the DOCTYPE.

If IE7 actually obeyed the box model properly and identified itself such that all the previous IE hacks would be invisible to it, then IE7 would be treated like another standards compliant browser.

It's not easy but its not impossible either.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 3rd, 2005
"This idea is copyrighted to me (c) 2005."

Except I posted pretty much the same idea before you, so I shall be taking you to court for copyright violation! :P
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
Why are we assuming that Firefox et al will not be able to replace IE as the most popular browser? People still install media players instead of Media Player.

Firefox has come such a long way and, as someone else mentioned, IE is going nowhere slowly, so isn't it safe to assume that at some point the balance will tip in favor of good browsers? Movements in the web space that call for browser extensions will only accelerate this development, the built-in RSS reader in Firefox being a great example.
Permalink jz 
August 3rd, 2005
It is ironic that the one thing which liberated browser development was the anti-trust behaviour of MSFT in destroying the Netscape brand and company and that its now MSFT that is so far behind the times as to appear irrelevant.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 3rd, 2005
So what you're saying, Philo, is that now that Microsoft has deliberately played dirty pool with embrace-and-extend, deliberately ignored web standards, and delivered a browser that speaks its own language, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't at this point?

Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree with that. Who is it that you want us to feel sorry for?
Permalink muppet 
August 3rd, 2005
"A large section of the end user market will never use Firefox or any other alternative, because they never use any software other than what came with the machine."

and this is *why* I *really* *really* want to embarrass Microsoft into doing something useful about IE. The excuses are all crap, everyone here knows damn well that Microsoft could and will deliver a decent browser if it decided it wanted to....absolutely worst case they could just take the KHTML rendering engine and wrap a shell around it like apple did with Safari.

Then they can provide a propriety tag so that legacy websites can choose which rendering engine IE should use for each page and voila...all the old stuff works perfectly, but new websites can take advantage of the standards compliant engine if they see fit.
hell, they could even make the current rendering engine the default choice if they want.

Its *not* a hard problem to solve if Microsoft had any interest in solving it.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
Im really interested though that philo is seriously suggesting that Microsoft base their engineering decisions on whether or not the conspiracy theorists will approve :)
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
"Why are we assuming that Firefox et al will not be able to replace IE as the most popular browser? People still install media players instead of Media Player."

jz- I'll make you a sizable bet that Media Player is still a large majority on the Windows desktop. Yeah, people that use their computer for music, videos etc. may well install alternative players. But the average user isn't that savvy. They don't know, they don't care, and they care even less about browsers. And that's fair enough.

The only solution from a developers point of view is to get MS to support the same standards as everyone else. Personally, I don't even care which standards, W3, whoever, as long as they're the same ones as other makers...

Thank god I do desktop software mainly these days :)
Permalink Andrew Cherry 
August 3rd, 2005
It doesn't need a proprietary tag, the referrer string is sufficient.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 3rd, 2005
This guy is complaining (MS evangelist) that the site in the OP doesn't meet W3C standards:

http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/02/1118.aspx

And then points out the original site uses frontpage:

http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/03/1122.aspx

Are all Microsoft evangelists that stupid?
Permalink el 
August 3rd, 2005
Errrr....

That's freaking priceless.
Permalink muppet 
August 3rd, 2005
Mat Hall:

Scary, we did have the same idea, didn't we. I didn't even browse up a little bit.
Permalink Berlin Brown 
August 3rd, 2005
It's a fairly obvious idea, really -- ok, so *a* browser control is tightly knight into the OS, but that doesn't mean that *THE* browser has to use it... Still, what do I know? :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
There's a difference between evangelists who are paid for MSFT to evangelise both internally and externally and self appointed evangelists who are largely wankers.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 3rd, 2005
Paid by, ugh this headache and double vision...
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 3rd, 2005
"everyone here knows damn well that Microsoft could and will deliver a decent browser if it decided it wanted to"

Heh.

Are you honestly suggesting that Brooks' Law doesn't apply to Microsoft?

For the "dual browser" suggestion - I don't think that would work, any more than the existence of Firefox has people suddenly ignoring IE in web development. The market is going to follow the browser with the largest market share, period.

When Firefox has 80+% of the market, then we can all ignore broken IE rendering. However, consider that the IE team now has standards compliance on their checklist - what if IE7 hits 3/4 of the nits, then IE8 hits 95% a year later?

(I don't know if that's their roadmap - just guessing here)

Bottom line - it's going to be interesting writing web applications for a few years yet. :)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 3rd, 2005
I don't think Philo understands the argument for "dual browsers". It's not necessarily dual browsers, its the ability to install more than one version of IE and allow them to run side by side in order to support legacy code. If they can do it with the .NET framework, they should be able to do it with IE.

And I think it's entirely fair if MS gets blamed for incompetence due to the fact that their OS and other applications (Office, etc) have an external browser dependancy which prevents achieving a reasonable browser upgrade.

BUT, I think all this FUD being thrown around about IE7 is goofy at this stage. When IE went up against Netscape long ago, it won for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was product superiority. I'm not so sure they're going to have that edge this time around.

At that point, *if* they then again resort to serious anticompetitive behavior, *then* I think it's time to fight back with boycott's etc.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
I understand. My point is that when we're talking about the billions of Windows users, you have to come up with a compelling case for them to install another browser. "IE7 makes life easier for web developers, but IE6 will still render most web sites" isn't really it.

Browser dependency - you're probably right. However, this falls under my philosophy of "don't worry about the past; where are we now, where do we want to go, and how do we get there?"

IE product superiority - as I said, it's going to be interesting.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 3rd, 2005
"It's included with the system" is not a killer-feature, it just happens to be an effective one because most of Microsoft's customers are uneducated about software and they like it that way.
Permalink muppet 
August 3rd, 2005
Philo - "[Dual browsers won't work]."

But if IE7 is deployed as a regular update and the IE6 control gets relegated to use by apps that are expecting it, then there'll be no effective difference in uptake than if IE7 gets tied to the OS, surely?
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
Does anyone know whether Microsoft still has contracts which basically threaten OEMs away from loading what they want on their Windows PCs?
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 3rd, 2005
Don't know, but I do know large governmental agencies are telling Microsoft what they can and can't include in their own operating system. <g>
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
Philo is totally right on this one. Microsoft pretty much as only one way forward and IE7 is currently taking that path. All this talk of multiple versions and such is an amazing headache that no company would willingly put onto itself.

That being said, there are two issues with IE development that need to be resolved:

1. Microsoft needs to have a respect for standards. They need to move towards implementing the standard. This includes Javascript, DOM, event model stuff as well as HTML and CSS. If they create more MS-only solutions they're going to piss more people off. It seems, so far, that they are moving in this direction.

2. They need a much more frequent release cycle. Part of the anger towards IE7 is because it comes 4 years after the release of IE6. Microsoft promising minor updates after such a long time is what hurts. And that IE8 might be another 4 years away doesn't help matters.

All the other browsers have much more reasonable release cycles. They can get away with incremental changes (as it should be) rather than giant leaps. There is no reason why Microsoft should pass Acid2 with this release -- but the expectation is that another release is too far away to even consider.

BTW, Philo, do you know what the IE team has been doing for the last 4 years? Were they completely disbanded? It seems that development on IE7 is pretty recent.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
"All this talk of multiple versions and such is an amazing headache that no company would willingly put onto itself."

AHA - You're off. Evidence: the dotnet framework. Allowing this kind of side by side execution isolates your dependencies so that you can avoid headaches.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
Those are different versions of the same product. Slight modifications of each other. Linux provides the same capability -- old versions of libraries along-side new versions.

Now Microsoft should have provided, a long time ago, a means to run different versions of IE on your computer at once. But the point was to leave IE6 as-is and move forward with a non-backwards compatible browser. That means supporting two different browsers indefininately.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
Almost H. Anonymous:

Don't be silly. Of course the core of IE6 would have to be supported until it end-of-lifed, but during that time and forever afterward there would be a much better system in place.

What you're proposing is never changing the broken system.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
The best argument against this form of versioning and support is that security is often a concern in older versions. Hackers have lots of time to figure out all of the holes to attack.

So, installing the versions side by side means that you may have four year old browser code running on your OS, even though you've downloaded the newest version.

The obvious argument that would be made against that would be the security of old browser versions would be supported until EOL.

The argument against that is that you'll end up the same quagmire we're in now; that is, you can't update it because legacy apps will break.

So, I say, only support the security on a minimal basis, and have an option for this "browsing framework" to warn anytime an old version is being loaded.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"...installing the versions side by side means that you may have four year old browser code running on your OS..."

True; that's much worse than the situation we have now, where we have four year old browser code running on our OS. Oh, wait, that's the same thing...

[g,d,r]
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 3rd, 2005
"What you're proposing is never changing the broken system."

No, it's simply refactoring vs. rewriting.

Microsoft would not be where it is if it changed it's broken system. They not-yet-released Windows Vista still has problems that relate to the needs of real-mode cooperative multitasking.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
I doubt MS starts all over with each new version of .NET. IMO, .NET has been done very, very well. Very well thought out framework.

You disagree?
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
> You disagree?

Sorry, this is misleading. All I'm saying is MS doesn't have to throw everything away to accomodate a system like this.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
If they don't have to throw everything away, then why do they need a system like this? If they can maintain compatiblity, why don't they just do that? Which is, of course, exactly what they are doing -- they're just moving at a glacial pace.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
Ok.. that's misleading.. they can certainly support multiple versions of IE at the same time. Just with multiple versions of .NET. I just mean that I think because of that they shouldn't drop backwards compatibility and rewrite.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
> If they don't have to throw everything away, then why do they need a system like this?

Okay it's clear now you don't understand the underlying concepts in side by side deployments. Sorry I wasted our time.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
Sorry again, this board is infecting me with muppetesque attributes.

The advantage is that you can deploy a significant update without worrying about backwards breaking changes. Legacy code continues to use it's most current, supported version.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"Legacy code continues to use it's most current, supported version."

As someone mentioned above, this can have significant security implications.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
> As someone mentioned above, this can have significant security implications.

HAHA!

That was ME! Predicting you're (obvious) argument! In an attempt to hedge you off! And you still went there!

Oh boy. You have to admit its amusing.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
So amusing I abandoned all conventional spelling and grammar. As is my custom. Sorry.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
Lesson to remember:

Every bad thing that the MSFT anti-trust conspiracy mongers predicted with respect to IE came to pass.

MSFT improved it until they had dominant marketshare, then abandoned the product until a credible threat re-emerged. Meanwhile, MSFT customers suffered through inestimable amounts of pain from IE inflicted Spyware, viruses, rendering bugs, and all around crappiness.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 3rd, 2005
> MSFT improved it until they had dominant marketshare, then abandoned the product until a credible threat re-emerged. Meanwhile, MSFT customers suffered through inestimable amounts of pain from IE inflicted Spyware, viruses, rendering bugs, and all around crappiness.

Jim this is nothing new or limited to MS. When you are without real competition, you tend to get lazy. And for a while, there was no credible competition, even on merits alone.

But I agree, anti-competitive behaviour is bad. I think almost everyone agrees too.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"You have to admit its amusing."

I really must learn just to scroll back up. *grin*

But seriously, what a frightening world it would be where every version of Windows came with the last 8-10 years of Internet Explorer. It's really bad enough it comes with one version.

.NET hasn't has 100% success with it's side-by-side deployment (w/ regards to app breakage). And a lot of people bitch about having to install 2 versions of it. Imagine what it'll be like in 10 years with 4 or 5 versions of .NET installed.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
> .NET hasn't has 100% success with it's side-by-side deployment (w/ regards to app breakage).

I think this is probably due to developers improperly configuring their apps. (I know because one of my apps broke with 1.1.)

I know what you are saying about the old code. But as I joked (Mat caught it), we already deal with old code, because it's too hard to roll out new code.

If it were easier to roll out new code, we could see significant progress every couple years (as we do with the .NET framework) and then the vendors for the legacy apps can release patches that authorize support for the newer platforms. This would allow old platforms to be removed in a timely manner.

As for the vendors that don't update their apps in a reasonable timeframe, well, they would be a problem with new versions anyway, and at least this way the user has the option of keeping the old platform to support their crappy app.

If you add in the option of "Warn before old browser platforms load" I think you really that really lays the foundations for a good upgrade/deployment model. What do say Philo, can you make it happen?
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"But seriously, what a frightening world it would be where every version of Windows came with the last 8-10 years of Internet Explorer. It's really bad enough it comes with one version"

(a) technically, thats what we have now :)

(b) no one is saying that every version needs to be deployed side-by-side, we are simply suggesting that a good way to make a clean break between the current rendering engine and a new, non-backwards compatible rendering engine would be to bundle *1* version of IE with the ability to switch between rendering engines on a per page basis.
Using this method all the old websites that require the current, broken, version of IE would render correctly by default whilst any web designer who cared and was creating a new website would have the ability to request that IE use a new rendering engine that would be fully standards compliant.

this is perfectly doable, and a perfectly good solution to the problems of maintaining backwards compatibility without losing forwards momentum.

but, of course, nothing like this will be done because Microsoft *really* *really* doesn't want the browser to become a decent platform.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
> Microsoft *really* *really* doesn't want the browser to become a decent platform.

That's FUD. Have you used Outlook Web Access on the newer versions of exchange? Pretty fantastic.

And I don't like your 1 version of IE with a switchable rendering engine. I prefer some kind of browser framework (similar to the IE core now) that is deployable side by side. :-p
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"That's FUD. Have you used Outlook Web Access on the newer versions of exchange? Pretty fantastic."


?? so what?


"And I don't like your 1 version of IE with a switchable rendering engine. I prefer some kind of browser framework (similar to the IE core now) that is deployable side by side. :-p"

<g> I hardly think that your personal stupidity is my problem...its obvious that having more than the bare minimum number of alternate versions around is a crisis waiting to happen.
we just need a stub library that calls through to whichever of the two engines is desired...anything else is too complicated and would only be suggested by someone of severely retarded reasoning ability.

(...with all due respect, of course...)
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
Your mom gave me the idea last night. (Oooh, buuurrnn!) ;-)

Seriously though, I believe something like the stubs has been tried already. Lasy web designers won't do it. Why should they, they'll reason, IE already owns the whole market...
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"we just need a stub library that calls through to whichever of the two engines is desired"

Rendering engine is not the only problem. Look at IE7; the menu is below the tabs and the reason for that is backwards compatibility. You need the menu below the tabs because different pages (PDF files, word documents, ActiveX controls) can add and remove menu items.

There isn't even much need for switching rendering engines (writing a new one). IE actually has a pretty great rendering engine, it just does somethings weirdly. Something as simple as DOCTYPE switching (like is done now for quirksmode) is all that's required. Rewriting the engine would put Microsoft back where the Mozilla project was when it had the code for Netscape 4.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
Let me break it down even further for you:

So you propose MS releases a dual engine IE (IE 1.6 and IE 2.0). Then they can just go on from there (increments on IE 2). One day though, an agile little competitor will be able to easily introduce features that will be hard to add onto IE (IE 2.6) without breaking legacy apps. So we repeat your solution (IE 2.6 and IE 3.0).

See, you're really arguing for the same thing I am, you just haven't thought about it very hard.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
My reply was for JHC.

AHA is out in left field. (Seriously, I don't think one person has even implied that MS do a complete rewrite of anything.)
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"Look at IE7; the menu is below the tabs and the reason for that is backwards compatibility. You need the menu below the tabs because different pages (PDF files, word documents, ActiveX controls) can add and remove menu items."

Im not sure how thats an argument against having the two engines? one engine would render the pdf files etc one way, and the other the other way.



"IE actually has a pretty great rendering engine,"

if that were true then they would not be having such big problems implementing the web standards :)

"Rewriting the engine would put Microsoft back where the Mozilla project was when it had the code for Netscape 4."

right, why rewrite it? why not just use KHTML as the alternate rendering engine, the same as apple does?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
"Your mom gave me the idea last night. (Oooh, buuurrnn!) "
you slept with my *mom*? your reasoning is retarded far beyond anything I expected.


"Lasy web designers won't do it. Why should they, they'll reason, IE already owns the whole market"

so why should I care whether they do or not? lazy developers can continue targeting the old engine for as long as they like. the advantage is that *smart* designers can target something that saves them time and money.

"See, you're really arguing for the same thing I am, you just haven't thought about it very hard."

actually Im *not* :) I would draw the line there and leave it, maintaining a whole history of frameworks would be a bizarre and difficult to manage solution...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
Why would you need to break backwards compatitibly if you aren't doing a rewrite?

There's no reason why IE7 couldn't be fully standards compliant and fully backwards compatible. So why have all these little seperate engines. I just don't see the need.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
> I would draw the line there and leave it

Well, that's your call. But dude, you should always plan to be agile. Seriously, the same thing will come up again, and somebody smaller will eat your lunch.

> maintaining a whole history of frameworks would be a bizarre and difficult to manage solution...

With the current maturation of things, the occurence of the need won't be that great. Which is actually an argument in *my* favor, because the scenario where many versions would be simoultaneously supported isn't realistic. I already explained (many posts ago) that I would limit support of previous versions that haven't been EOL'd (which would be one or two max) to security minimums.

I think I got too far out in front of this argument. ;-)
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
"There's no reason why IE7 couldn't be fully standards compliant and fully backwards compatible."

well, actually we've been given a bunch of reasons by philo and the IEBLOG (did you visit that? the link is further up)
(1) backwards compatibility..like you said, Im not sure about the logic there myself, but I assume its based around the fact that many sites *rely* on various bugs and hacks to do things.

(2) fundamental design problems which are making specific areas of the web standards very hard to implement.

(3) no one has said it, but I get the feeling that *time* spent is an issue...turns out that development *stopped* on IE for nearly 4 or so years, so actually its no surprise that they are massively behind in things like this (although it is a huge disappointment and frustration...as developers we have to support this bastard child that belongs to microsoft, it would be nice to feel that microsoft was actually helping us do so.)....again wrapping a shell around a lightweight but mostly standards compliant browser like KHTML would solve this problem without requiring vast amounts of rewriting of anything at all.


anyway, basically I agree with you...if IE can support web standards within a reasonable time frame without doing anything like that then *great*, but the news we are getting back is that they are going to be a long time doing this, if ever.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
"did you visit that?"

Yup. Read it a few days ago.

"I assume its based around the fact that many sites *rely* on various bugs and hacks to do things."

Of course. But splitting IE up into different rendering engines isn't going to solve this problem.

"fundamental design problems which are making specific areas of the web standards very hard to implement."

Assuming they rewrite IE to support hard to implement web standards they doesn't mean they need multiple rendering engines to maintain backwards compatitiblity. Windows 2000 is (bug-for-bug) compatible with Windows 98 but they are vastly different. If they were to take something like KHTML though they'd have to give up all hope of backwards compatitibly with old IE.

"wrapping a shell around a lightweight but mostly standards compliant browser like KHTML would solve this problem without requiring vast amounts of rewriting of anything at all."

So a future version that is IE in name only. It wouldn't solve any problems for web developers or users in the short term. Without short term uptake it wouldn't gain enough marketshare to matter.

"but the news we are getting back is that they are going to be a long time doing this, if ever."

Based on the IEBlog it seems they're going to make reasonable pace for beta 2. The problem is, as you said, that nobody touched IE for 4 years. If they can maintain this level of momentum I think they'll do well. But, honestly, I expect that IE7 will be released and it'll be another 4 years before the next version.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
"There's no reason why IE7 couldn't be fully standards compliant and fully backwards compatible."

Can you still make this statement so glibly when you consider that they support literally billions of people and have millions of websites to consider?

Remember - the first time that Amazon.com, Apache.org, Slashdot, Register.org, etc, etc, etc don't render properly in IE (even if it's the result of implementing standards), the IE team shows up on the front page of the Washington Post.

Even changing something as straightforward as PNG alpha channels means massive amounts of regression testing - on Windows, applications that use IE, applications that use the IE plugin, the PDF plugin, Flash, Shockwave, and however many websites the group has chosen to test rendering. And don't forget stability testing with video drivers.

And that's for XP Home, Pro, Win2k3 Server, Vista desktop, Vista Server, each in 17+ languages.

Add in the book of security vulnerability tests, under a hundred different scenarios.

Now let's look at fixing a CSS bug. Massive amounts of regression testing - on Windows, applications that use IE, applications that use the IE plugin...

Again, remember - miss one tiny rendering bug that screws up eBay and the day it ships you've effectively shut down phone support.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 3rd, 2005
Right Philo,

So basically Microsoft fucked themselves for deliberately ignoring varoius standards in nearly every incarnation of IE until this point, and now they're in a predicament.

I cry big purple tears for them.
Permalink muppet 
August 3rd, 2005
Look AHA, it can't really be compliand and compatible at the same time. Here's why:

<div style="width: 150; margin: 5;">blah blah</div>

Is currently rendered incorrectly (non-compliant). If they correct this, existing sites built to use this no longer render as they were intended (uncompatible).

Earlier, Simon tried to say (but failed to communicate) that since saavy web designers use IE's bugs against them in isolating IE from compliant style implementations, they could essentially would ignore the hacks meant for IE6, just as FireFox does. This isn't true backward compatibility though, as many sites (especially intranet web apps I bet) are designed only for IE6, and would look as crappy on a compliant IE7 as they do on FF.

There are other reasons too, I think. But that should clear it up a bit for you.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
Philo beat me. ;)
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 3rd, 2005
...allow me to add: "given a lot of time."

I completely agree with you Philo. But at the same time IE has made lots of similar progress in the past. Quirksmode is a perfect example of this. I actually have a brand new site that relies on quirksmode because IE does something entirely weird in standards mode (both Firefox and Opera render it correctly either way).

IE may have to continue to support it's crappy box model for the end of time. But why don't we just call that "IEMode" and create a "StandardsMode" that does everything right.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
Muppet, which is it?

Earlier you asserted, with absolute certainty:
"Microsoft doesn't WANT standards compliance"

Now you're acting as though the IE team *does* want standards compliance but should be pitied because prior decisions have put them in a difficult place.

You know, you could save yourself a lot of time by just programming an "I hate Microsoft" macro and hitting the shortcut key instead of actually trying to reply.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 3rd, 2005
Does anyone *know* what Microsoft wants? Does Microsoft even know? They seem to be pretty confused about it.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 3rd, 2005
Microsoft wants to make money, a *lot* of money.

I think they've forgotten that there is an intermediate step between them wanting money, and people giving it to them :)

I increasingly get the feeling these days that Microsoft is trying to drive its customers ahead of it, attempting to herd them in the direction it wants them to go.

I suspect its to do with its huge drag factor, it can no longer compete in the smaller, more innovative and more agile markets because (a) it cannot develop products that quickly anymore and (b) all markets are small when they start off, unless it looks like a huge market Microsoft isn't really interested.

Of course the tradeoff is twofold, first that Mocrosoft never innovates anymore, it just tries to do more of the same better and cheaper than the first movers and second Microsoft is realising that what it *really* wants to do is move its customers into cattle sheds for milking, getting money from existing customers being so much more efficient and all, so its started trying to herd us into the sheds.


meh, microsoft as a well run company should voluntarily split itself up into separate companies and make them each sink or swim depending on their own merits. *that* would foster innovation if it were done right, and re-ignite the desire to follow the customer.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
August 3rd, 2005
"
That's FUD. Have you used Outlook Web Access on the newer versions of exchange? Pretty fantastic.'

OMG are you serious. You think that the existence of OWA means MS likes web apps for the masses? They don't mind a PROPRIETARY web app that really only works with IE and only connects to their web server.
Permalink anIdea 
August 4th, 2005
...and helps them sell Exchange -- which is not a web application.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 4th, 2005
"Now you're acting as though the IE team *does* want standards compliance but should be pitied because prior decisions have put them in a difficult place."

Actually Philo, I was only trying to sum up YOUR argument, not agree with it. Try to keep up, huh?
Permalink muppet 
August 4th, 2005
"OMG are you serious. You think that the existence of OWA means MS likes web apps for the masses? They don't mind a PROPRIETARY web app that really only works with IE and only connects to their web server."

Okay, have you looked at ASP.Net 2.0?

Web apps have their place. MS just doesn't think every application in existence needs to run across the web.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 4th, 2005
They don't think it so strongly that they're bound and determined to do as much as they can to keep their competitors from doing it either.
Permalink muppet 
August 4th, 2005
Perhaps the maxim "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" is fitting here?
Permalink Mat Hall 
August 4th, 2005
> Web apps have their place. MS just doesn't think every application in existence needs to run across the web.

Exactly. And especially with the rise in technologies like web services (which MS has helped push to widespread use), which makes web-smart rich client apps that can interface with multiple systems easy.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
No, no, Jeff - you need to read the "SOA vs. API" thread from a few days back. Web services are stupid - we should all be accessing the databases directly, because that's worked so well in the past. ;)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 4th, 2005
Philo sez --> Can you still make this statement so glibly when you consider that they support literally billions of people and have millions of websites to consider?

Most people, even developers, have no idea the effort and resources involved in this.

Once upon a time, I was responsible for the coding the DHTML in the internet connection wizard tutorial for IE5. No big deal, knd of cool to show friends, etc.

But ... it turned out that in some versions of the Korean release for W98 it would occassionally generate a race condition and thus create a Jscript error. Thus was born a ship stopping bug with my name on it. While the list of ship stopping bugs got very small, my name became more obvious, and the more I feared the Eye of Mordor (billg) in the next building would take note. Very motivating, that, BTW.

Think about the sheer volume of testing and bug fixing this implies, however, involved in a release of IE even then. It literally boggles the mind.
Permalink Mongo 
August 4th, 2005
That's a fairly hard bug to nail though and one that's only going to shake out in testing. The box model bugs are all because the W3C docs weren't followed and there were (I think) two MSFT representatives on the committee that worked on the standard.

The 'lets not break all the existing users in the world' philosophy is a good one but its generally fixed by factoring and slicing the problem a different way not by running away and hiding until all the users/applications have died.

There is no need for multiple rendering engines (for the most part these aren't rendering bugs anyway), the layout engine lives above the renderer though if it doesn't it would explain some of the IE bizarre behaviour.

So the first task I'd have identified in picking up IE development again would have been a way to isolate behaviour before version 7 and behaviour after it such that pages that behaved now still behaved as expected. This sounds like a nightmare task but it actually comes down to some straightforward identifying of critical paths and understanding where the division can be made. Without that identification further development takes place in the dark with a candle in a force ten gale.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 4th, 2005
> This sounds like a nightmare task

Yeah I've been thinking about this myself, but I just don't see how it can be done. I think if users were allowed to specify when the new layout engine "breaks" expected behaviour on a target site, and these sites were reported and analyzed by some smart (bayesian derivitive?) filter, maybe that would do it. But your IE7 browser would have to ask the filter which layout engine to use, and I don't think people want their browser talking to MS about every web site you visit...
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
Other people (even some on this board) want a declaration at the beginning of the page to state that the site should be rendered in the new standards mode. But I hate that solution. It violates the standard. If we are going to introduce explicit declarations, it should be to use the old broken layout engine. But if web designers are going to add that declaration, they might as well fix their site...
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
Yes because adding a tag at the top of each page is just as difficult as combing ALL of the source code tag-by-tag to correct all of its compliance issues, so they may as well.

Pish tosh.
Permalink muppet 
August 4th, 2005
"It violates the standard."

Sometimes you have break a few eggs to make bread. I'm sure there is enough wiggle room (probably in the DOCTYPE) for an extra declaration that all browsers will happily ignore except for IE. Is it a hack? Sure it is. Does that matter? Not if you want things to move forward.

"If we are going to introduce explicit declarations, it should be to use the old broken layout engine."

That ain't gonna work.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 4th, 2005
Using DOCTYPE and changing the referrer should be sufficient, it doesn't need a new DOCTYPE just one of the strict ones.


Nuff said.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 4th, 2005
What has the referrer got to do with it???!
Permalink muppet 
August 4th, 2005
> Not if you want things to move forward.

I disagree. I think if you continue to let non-compliant sites render absolutely fine, you're hindering forward progress.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
You don't want a browser that refuses to display non-compliant HTML. There was a whole article written about that some time ago that made some excellent (if unfortunate) points.
Permalink muppet 
August 4th, 2005
Let me go back to something I said earlier. I think the key to providing some amount of backwards compatibility comes from this:

"since saavy web designers use IE's bugs against them in isolating IE from compliant style implementations, [IE7] would ignore the hacks meant for IE6, just as FireFox does"
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
"I disagree. I think if you continue to let non-compliant sites render absolutely fine, you're hindering forward progress."

Firefox, Safari, Opera, K-Melon, etc, etc all continue to let non-compliant sites renders fine. Sites with tags like <b>Testing <i>1, 2, 3</b> more here</i> still render as they did years ago. I'd argue that lots of forward progress is being made with all these browsers.

And do you really want to make the entire Internet Archive useless?
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 4th, 2005
Read my quote again people: "render absolutely fine".

That is not: "render at all". But if they say "margin: 5px;" put that margin in the place it belongs. Now look, I'm not absolute on this either. Note my bayesian filter suggestion. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if a highly trained filter examining the layout of a site would be able to pick out the ones designed for IE6. But that's just one suggestion, I'm not for breaking old sites, but I do want new sites to render correctly *without* jumping through hoops (some declaration) *just* for IE.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
I wouldn't want the rendering of my site left to chance (via a Bayesian filter). I'd want to be explicit.

As it stands right now I need to jump through hoops to get my site rendering correctly in IE, Firefox, and Opera. They all require tweaks somewhere. Sometimes IE does a better job than Firefox. So what is one more tweak for IE? Nothing.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 4th, 2005
I'm a very pragmatic web developer. I don't do all CSS layouts -- I have a few tables. I try and have all the pages validate but I care more about user experience than the purity of my code.

An extra declaration is not a "pure" solution. It's not clean and pretty. But it is a pragmatic solution.
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
August 4th, 2005
> I'm a very pragmatic web developer.

When the rubber meets the road, so am I. But when planning the future, I try to push the envelope as far towards the ideal as possibe, and then make concessions from there.

In fact, if you look at the top of this thread, you'll notice that I was one of those who thought all the fuss about IE7 not being completely standards compliant was unrealistic.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 4th, 2005
To the issue of legacy web sites:

If Firefox, Safari, Opera, or whatever break Amazon, Slashdot, etc., they hear it too. IE has no special vulnerability here. In fact, because those sites are written to conform to IE, the other browsers have a HARDER job maintaining compatibility. But they appear to be doing a darn good job of sucking it up and conforming to "the way IE does things".

Second, if what Philo says is true, that's even worse. It means that MSFT can no longer afford to add new functionality or features to its software. Thus, we have even more incentive to abandon MSFT software sooner, rather than later.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 4th, 2005
Jeff, can you tell us if Bill or Steve have any colon polyps?
Permalink Gene 
August 4th, 2005
"Second, if what Philo says is true, that's even worse. It means that MSFT can no longer afford to add new functionality or features to its software. Thus, we have even more incentive to abandon MSFT software sooner, rather than later."

Exactly. Muppet was right about the big purpel tears. Plus considering how intermeshed most things on Windows are, you know any one thing you change is going to touch about 153 others. This tight coupling and code reuse of theirs is great - IF your code is perfect. When it's not or it needs to be updated it's frickin chaos. The code is becoming unmaintainable.
Permalink Gene 
August 4th, 2005
Gene, here's a quote from this thread:

"And I think it's entirely fair if MS gets blamed for incompetence due to the fact that their OS and other applications (Office, etc) have an external browser dependancy which prevents achieving a reasonable browser upgrade."

Know who said that? ME.

Read a thread before posting and you might not reveal yourself as an illiterate retard.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
August 5th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics