On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:31 am, Phillip Deackes wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:51:36 -0700 > > Jaye Inabnit ke6sls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The last paragraph is indicative of the masses: "I am not interested in > > telling web designers ~." Simply multiply that by your local census, > > and soon it becomes apparent how horrible problems begin. > > > > I *do* take the time to post notes to webmins when I hit a site I can > > not access without forking over money to M$. I don't have M$ on my box, > > and I am going to keep it that way, but I still want to access the info > > I am seeking. I don't think that it is asking too much. > > > > Apologies if I seem condescending, I don't mean to be. > > Not at all. No offence taken. > > I am not a programmer. I am an end user. At work I use Windows and can > access almost every web site going. At home I have problem after problem > *for whatever reason*. I share my house with a friend and he often uses my > computer - it is very hard trying to explain why we are using Linux when > he cannot access so may web pages. He is certainly not interested in the > slightest what a web designer uses to create his/her web site - he just > wants to access the information on it. If I suggested to him that he > contact web designers to complain about their web sites he would think I > was an idiot - 'I can access them using Windows, so what's the problem?' > would be his retort. > > If you wish not to access sites written poorly, or using MS code, then you > are free to make that choice. Let's have a web browser which accesses all > web sites and I can have my choice too. > > The point I am trying to make is that if a large percentage of the world > is using MS IE-specific code in spite of the best efforts of yourself and > others, it is surely far easier for Linux programmers to change whatever > is needed in Mozilla, Galeon et al. so that these pages can be accessed > than to change the habits of the web-designers around the world. Whether > we like it or not certain methods or techniques become the norm due to > sheer weight of numbers using them. This is the way of the world. The best > methods do not necessarily win through - the Video2000/Betamax/VHS issue > immediately springs to mind where the poorest quality format won the > battle. > > I do agree with you in principle, but in practice it is not you or me who > decides what people use to design web-sites. > > Take care.
it's great that you get around to making linux a part of your computing day, and you have a point in that regular desktop users who want all the bells and whistles seem to be accommodated more by microsoft than by any of the available linux distros right now. the point is that a lot of that accommodation is achieved by the cyber equivalent of smoke and mirrors where the actual cost to you and everyone else is kept out of sight. for most of us who made the committment to get free of the monopolist, the motivating factor is achieving that independence, and part of the process of that achievement involves reappraisal of what is actually necessary in order to use the web without compromising one's own personal information security. while the rule that the only secure machine is one locked in a vault with the power off still applies, there's a huge gap in the degree of vulnerability you are exposed to in using microsoft products compared with the use of similar technology on a linux box. if you follow the news, you may be aware of the fact that microsoft believes that bug-reporting is a form of anarchy, and they are doing all they can to impose an industry-wide standard of withholding bug information from their own consumer base so that, in effect, you can't have access to the information that would prove their inadequate software was responsible for whatever harm whichever particular defect had actually caused you to endure. given the ever broadening range of the aspects of your personal welfare that can be affected by the nature of your activity on the web, i tend to view the disclosure of software defects that affect your security in the course of that activity as damn near a moral and definitely an ethical obligation on the responsible party. when you do venture out on the web, it is absolutely not as simple an exercise as watching tv. you have, in fact, left the security of your own home to engage in interactions with various entities of whom you very often know very little--thus, caution is advised. the problem with microsoft as the provider of the transport you use to get there is that their method of conveyance is the near equivalent to riding on a mystery-tour bus packed with pickpockets where the windows are not made of transparent glass but plastered-on views of what the bus line proprietor decides that you get to see. your options in exercising caution are severely restricted, often actually prevented. not only is your safety compromised but there's not a hell of a lot that you can do about it except fork out more and more money in order to kid yourself into the idea that you have. if you like, think of it as paying the most imposing of the pickpockets to protect you from the others and then watching him wander off up to the front of the bus, leaving you surrounded by the others. almost anything you can do with a microsoft product, you can also do with free software available for linux, but you can't do it without becoming far more aware of what it is that you are actually doing. that, to my mind, seems more of a bonus than anything else. the point is, with the use of your computer, as with pretty much everything else in your life, blissful ignorance has a price. you don't automatically need a phd in computer science in order to protect yourself as a user any more than you need one in automotive engineering in order to drive a car safely, but you do, in both cases, need to accept a proportionate degree of responsibility for the potential consequences of your behavior. the occasional indulgence of enabling every feature of msie in order to visit your favorite bells and whistles web site should not force you into compromising your own welfare, but a substantial body of evidence shows that it can. that's the point of contacting websites to complain about user-restrictive practices. security is in no way assured when web designers allow themselves to be manipulated into employing pseudo-standards that are intended by their designer--and, in the case of ms, enforcer--to engender policies that not only inhibit competition in the market place but force you to ride the pickpocket express in order to get there in the first place. if you're not already aware of microsft's contempt for those who resist their loathsome charms, then you're missing the gist of what's going on here. while probably most of us on the list couldn't make a living without touching an ms setup at least some of the time, that's the nature of living with the failure of the legal system in this country to anticipate the ramifications of information technology on public behavior. given that enabling of microsoft's monopolistic free reign, the power of their influence seems to have convinced most of the public that nothing else will do, subtly evading the question of what it is that they do. that evasion results in their marketing of applications so fraught with vulnerability that the highest level of skill one needs to completely compromise system functionality for thousands and potentially millions of users is only as much as it takes to download a virus kit and insert its product into an email message. how many mouse clicks is that? their response to those who alert the public to the discovery of those vulnerabilities that enable such compromises is to label the very idea of bug-reporting as cyber-anarchy? i can't tell the difference between that and, let's say, publicly denouncing whoever alerts the public to the fact that your car has slipped its brakes and is careening down a hill, and solely on the grounds that some people, being alerted, might deliberately jump in front of the car to benefit from the insurance on it or may even push others into its path out of sheer malice. no, by microsoft's "standards," best not mention it, at all. this is about not putting up with that crap. part of not putting up with that crap is doing what you can to aid and encourage others to do the same, whether you're simply helping a friend with a box or urging web designers to adopt standards amenable to all of us here. if and when it hits your particular fan, "i'm just the user" isn't going to be much comfort, particularly given that it feels much more like being the used. ignorance tends to be disregarded as an excuse according to the law, except of course the kind that microsoft gets to claim. when the justice department took them on, it turns out that they came up with another variant on the same theme, by employing a judge so inept that he was take off the case for betraying his own ignorance of the basic tenets of jurisprudence. how often to you get to read a published interview with any judge discussing the merits of a case currently in progress over which he presides? to take on the biggest commercial entity in the world, they pick the dumbest judge in the building. any kid watching tv knows better than that. but then any kid in front of a computer could launch a mail virus that brings business to its knees and anti-virus vendors to their feet. there can't ever have been a more profitable scam perpetrated on the world, and the only reason it happens is because the user lets it happen. the thing is, on a linux system, you're not just the user--you're also, by default, the operator, a role that implies and grants way more authority than microsoft thinks you can be trusted with. the difference between the two environments is that in one, the standards that fail to guarantee your security are not merely inadequate but their construction is both out of your hands and irrevocable, while in the other, there are no restrictions on your participation in their development and vast discretion allowed in manipulating their use to your needs. you want to be able to do it all in linux? then you should do whatever you can to encourage those who prevent that to rethink their philosophy. take care of yourself ben -- Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject "unsubscribe". Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)