Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IE (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Gary Hallock")
Re: IE (Bob Hauck)
Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows (pip)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (pip)
Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows (pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:08:58 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:z70H6.46360$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If CP/M had won, MS would not have had an OS base
> to erode; Windows could have wont hem such a base.
>
> It would have been a good idea. A second chance to
> beat CP/M.
And *no* 9x!!!
What a *sweat* idea.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:12:54 +0200
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Then there's the Office rip-offs
> > > > http://www.linux-mandrake.com/screenshots/venus1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > It's like a whos-who list of plagiarists!
> > >
> > > I mean look at this! I love how those that claim to despite the GUI
and
> > > everything MS like - are the first to do everything possible to copy
it.
> > > Look at all the damn near identical copies of Windows tools and the
look and
> > > feel. Give me a break, these screen shots are fantastic. I didn't see
a
> > > single original idea in the bunch.
> >
> > It seems that the KDE developers are listening to the screams of
> > Win-Users who cannot deal with software that doesn't look and feel
> > like Windoze software.
>
> Actually I thought the cloned XP desktop was pretty cool looking.
Yeah, in a weak, I'm going to have a spare box to try Mandrake 8 on, how do
I get this affect?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:17:23 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
> > >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > actually, my system runs absolutely PERFECTLY. i'm a hardware tech
with 9
> > >> > years' experience in the business, am relatively fluent in basic
and C,
> > >> and
> > >> > am capable of solving any hardware problem on a Mac, PC or Linux
box.
> > >>
> > >> There is not such thing as a Linux box.
> > >
> > >It's sad to learn such a thing. My customers will be bitterly
> > >disappointed when they'll learn that we've been developing for months
on
> > >a number of non-existing boxes, and we will deliver them a
non-existing
> > >box running the software they need!
> >
> > You didn't understand, Giuliano. What he meant was that there is no
> > specific hardware platform, as in "Mac or PC".
> >
>
> It was an apparently failed attempt to be sarcastic. It's a common
> language shortcut call "Linux box" a box running Linux, as opposed to an
> e.g. "Windows box".
No, there is no such thing as a Windows box either, not in the sense he was
talking about.
He was talking about *hardware*, so it's a hardware box, not OS box.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:24:58 GMT
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:06:49
> >>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> >>Then use Lynx.
> >>The fact that so many sites, when detect NS4, send you a page that IE2 could
> >>parse easily doesn't mean anything to use, right?
> >
> >I'm not sure what the latter has to do with the former. Does lynx have
> >a very comprehensive bookmark system? NS4 seems to work perfectly well
> >for me, to be honest.
> >
> When MULTI_BOOKMARK_SUPPORT:TRUE is set in the lynx.cfg file 26
> bookmark files with what looks to be about a 32 character label in
> addition to the filename are available.
>
> I have not felt the need for them myself but then I use NS4.75
> most of my time on line with images, javascript, java, document
> supplied fonts, and style sheets all turned off.
I have the feeling that your attitude (which I share, btw.) is becoming
more and more common, as a reaction to "artistic" web sites.
I have an e-mail account at usa.net, and recently, when I tried to
access the site I was rejected. I tried again paying more attentions to
the links I was set through, before being rejected, and I saw a
"reason=images disabled" pass by.
Well, if they took the pain to check for images enabled, and to reject
users which don't have them, it means that it's not just my (and yours)
lunacy!
>
> These artsy sites with lots of flash have reduced me to that to
> be identified as "minimally acceptable" to visit their sites.
>
> If they don't have text labels on their links I leave and never
> return.
>
> --
> Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
--
Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:32:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Linux on the desktop? A joke at best, some poor fools job at worst.
>
> Take a P166 with 64 meg and load Linux Mandrake 7.x on it and Win98SE
> and see which one is more responsive. Linux is slow as shit... So much
> for Linux on legacy hardware, unless of course you like looking at a CLI
> then Linux screams....Of course any newbie forced to use the cli will be
> screaming as well. Try loading kde or Gnome and see the system crawl.
>
W2K on a laptop? A joke at best, some poor fools job at worst.
Laptops are much more likely to be powered on and off making the boot
time important. Take at look at the boot time for my T20 with 256MB of
RAM and 700Mhz PIII.
W2K - 7-8 minutes
Redhat 7.1 - 1 minute, 7 sec
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:43:47 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:43:37 +0100, Michael Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > I have only two comments about that. One is that I cannot get a 41K
> > connection, or even 33.6.
> That is exceptionaly unfortunate, but, while I feel for you, this time I
> feel I really do have to say that this one particular problem isn't mine ;)
It is, however, a problem that is shared by a surprising number of
people.
> However I'm sure you should make formal complaints if the lines really are
> that shit...
Oh, yeah, that'll do a lot of good. They only guarantee 9600 bps in the
tariff. It isn't as if I can threaten to take my business elsewhere
either.
> No, that is true, but the connections for such small files (in my case) are
> often done simultaneously, offseting some of the latency. Still, a good
> point. Perpahs we shall up it to a whole 3 seconds ;)
Six on my line. It actually took fifteen or twenty after accounting for
DNS delays and such. Still, that's perfectly acceptable.
> I understand about the 50 gifs though. In that instance, a good designed
> should use a graphical font if possible, webdings and wingdings are fairly
> widespread and can work perfectly well as buttons and other little icons.
A lot of sites seem to have lots of little GIF spacers to make things
line up. Or they use lots of little images in a table to put together
some elaborate sidebar or whatever.
> It's not a technique I have tried though. I prefer to go with simple
> formatted bullet lists rather than graphic ones... Neater.
Yes, they look fine and are easier to code as well.
. > Browser-specific code is bad enough, but when the site gets the
> > detection wrong too, well, then the designers ought to be taken to a
> > re-education camp or something.
> Detection can be a problem though.
Which is another reason to write pages that do not need it.
> > Careful, you're going to be accused of advocating "simplism" 8->
>
> Na. I advocate elegance when it comes to web design. Simplicity in your
> sense of the word means very simple in both code and output.
I've written my share of elaborate code, believe me. Keeping
everything simple can result in not quite meeting the spec, so it is
not always possible. Things should be as complicated as they need to
be, but not more than that.
However, sometimes the spec is wrong. Trying to impress web site
visitors with a whiz-bang look seems a bit counterproductive to me.
People will come back to your site if it is useful, and won't if it is
not. I don't think the look and feel really has much to do with it at
all, as long as it is usable. The web is not TV, with people channel
surfing for a show to watch. Maybe I'm weird, but my normal mode of
operation on the web is to either go directly to a site I have
bookmarked, or search for something on Google. I don't go browsing
around for something shiny to grab.
It seems that a large number of companies and their web designers don't
understand this. They appear to think that a web site is like a
brochure or an advertisement. It shouldn't be in most cases.
> I strive to create a more visually appealing look, based on certain
> principals of simplicity, but the code you need to create such a
> thing is more complicated than you might think.
Just so you know, I do not claim to be a web designer. Whatever look my
web site has is purely based on not wanting to spend much time on it.
My real job is writing software for embedded systems. I'm an engineer
by training.
> Did you ever go look at www.webdesignsystem.co.uk?
Haven't yet. Will take a look.
> NS6, IE, Mozilla and Opera should all be fine.
I have two of those.
> Secondly, you need a coply of the tahoma font, installed as standard on
> windows systems.
It is? I thought it came with Office. Anyway, I don't own a Windows
system. I have one at work though.
> > BTW, I'm going to be travelling on business next week, so we may have
> > to leave this for a while. Sorry.
>
> OK, I'll leave it as a watched thread, so if you post on it when you get
> back I'll be sure to see it...
Ok. Have a good week.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:02:09 +0100
Marcello Barboni wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Don't be so silly. If you want to know about NASA and how they use
> > computers then go to their website. They have some good academic papers
> > regarding computing and reliability and systems used on space flights.
>
> I searched the nasa site and didn't find anything. Do you have some
> pointers?
If I remember I got the papers form the Goddard Flight Centre server -
but I can't remember the url - they have a complex selection of
different depts. Still I found it - it's not rocket science. Well, it is
in fact - but you can still find it :)
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:05:30 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > Eeeeek (Out Of Depth Alert). If I knew what an A20 gate _was_, then I am
> > sure that I too would have equal concerns about it :)
>
> An unbelievably arcane feature.
>
> Once upon a time, the 8086 had 20 address lines (A0-A19) allowing it to
> access up to 1MB of memory.
>
> Then along came the 286 which had 24 address lines.
>
> The 286 which offered amongst other things 8086 compaitbility
> mode, 286 mode, 8086 virtual machine mode and an 8086 enhanced mode.
>
> The 8086 enhcnced mode is rather curious. It allows the 286 running in
> 8086 mode to access the 21st address line A20. However due to a curious
> segmentation feature (the deatails escape me) it does not double the
> address space, but merely adds on an extra segment (64K in size, I
> believe). This feature working on A20 is called the A20 gate.
...And so I guess that as no one uses this any more is useless
compatibility baggage.
I see! Thanks.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:12:54 +0100
Marcello Barboni wrote:
> On sci.space.shuttle I found a post (http://groups.google.com/groups?
> hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=982d6b07a0bf50f9&seekm=38A7057C.3E83B7FF%
> 40ibm-pc.org#p) that stated that some of the onboard systems ran
> windows, don't know if it's true or not.
btw - I am talking about "flight" systems and "control" systems. They
may still use windows for some experiments or on their laptops. The
flight control system for the shuttle is a really complex and
interesting bit of military grade software. Interesting stuff. When you
have to prove that your code _is_ correct (otherwise people die) there
are some interesting issues. Also they have some info on how they use
software in deep space missions where both hardware and software _have_
to work for up to 20+ years without failure. It puts my PC uptime to
shame.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:49:33 -0500
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <A90H6.803$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > tmax just isn't worth it, and it is fairly clear that his job is to
> > obscure argument, only to make sure that the proof of the GPL not being
> > free is forgotten about, ...
>
> Never explain by malice what can adequately be explained
> by stupidity. There is no conspiration, and Max doesn't
> have a "job".
>
There can't be ANYONE that stupid :-).
John
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:35 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 29 Apr 2001 08:57:44
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>In the end, these last few exchanges have devolved to commenting on
>>rhetoric, not dealing with the meaning of the terms "killing in war is
>>unethical".
>
>Agreed. But I will add that I have found in my few attempts at
>trying to carry on a debate with Roberto that, no matter the topic,
>the debate inevitably veers off into a rhetorical debate
>precisely because he often says very different things.
I understand what you mean, really. Believe me, I am not his biggest
fan, and he does get quite obstinate. Still, over the last few months,
I will have to admit my opinion of him has moderately increased. Maybe
its just the fact that the people who get caught up with him make him
look a little better in contrast.
>In this debate alone, he has said:
>
>All killing in war is murder
>All killing is murder
>All killing is murder, except killing in self-defense.
>All non-self defence killing is murder, including killing at war.
>
>When trying to pin him down on some of these things, the debate
>will quickly revert to what "murder" means and what "is" is
No, you have it backwards. Roberto has been defending a very simple and
unambiguous point, I think, and your listing of rhetoric above seems to
be an attempt to misunderstand him, and nothing else. He will have said
a number of things, of course, during the exchange, particularly given
the apparent goals and purpose of the opposition. I have not noticed
any intent or effort on his part to either quibble or waffle. If you
are not willing to understanding the meaning of his words, and get hung
up on the fact that he put 'all killing is murder', in your opinion,
together as a phrase, then you are in fact planning to maintain the
debate at the rhetorical level. I will not speculate why this is, but
would ask that you consider it.
The debate reverts to epistemological bickering simply because nobody
has been able to even approach the level of ethical consideration
Roberto has been dealing with. It isn't Roberto that's been doing that,
but Bill H, and I'm afraid at least to some extent, you.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:36 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:52:27 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Post your address, please, so we can know where your little "kill zone"
>> is, and avoid it.
>
>To avoid "it", you simply avoid invading my home and you avoid endagering me
>or my family.
You say that now. But I have no reason to believe the words of an
admittedly violent man.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:38 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:00:26 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> >Damn right it is ethical to protect myself or my home from a home
>invasion.
>> >It's ethical to protect yourself. That's why I carry an M1911A1.
>>
>> I'm not second-guessing your morality, dude. But if you are not aware
>> of your requirement to double-check your ethics before you do something
>> merely because it is legal, then you are not ethical, and so whether any
>> action you might take "is ethical" is doubtful.
>
>When is it not ethical to protect one's self or his home?
It *may* not be ethical to do so with deadly force, if such force is not
"actually" necessary. I have no more intent than Texas legislators to
second-guess your reasonable understanding of the situation. I would
have to declare, however, that you seem not simply justified, but
anxious, to kill intruders who do not threaten your life. This is the
self-serving position of a man who only acts 'ethical' because it
happens to be 'legal', and so he presumes so long as he acts legally, he
is acting ethically. Hence, it is not an ethical position, whether it
is ethical to protect one's self or one's home or not.
>> Of course it is ethical to protect yourself and your home from
>> "invasion", and you have a right to use a gun, and potentially deadly
>> force. But if you're going to start putting together sentences like "it
>> is ethical to kill someone when..."
>
>And what did I say?
Something that wasn't that. Please compare and consider.
[...]
>This portion of the thread was just to show you and Roberto that your
>blanket statement regarding the possibility of prosecution was wrong for the
>scenario Roberto developed.
We didn't make any "blanket statements". You did, when you claimed
prosecution is somehow impossible because you're allowed to kill an
intruder IF you *reasonably* believe deadly force is necessary. You
play on the idea that we are forced to believe you are reasonable, until
AFTER you kill a couple people for trying to steal your stereo. There
is no way I am going to give you the benefit of doubt, after such an
occurrence, and I don't care whether it was a legal action.
>As I said, in that scenario of a thief with one
>foot in your house and another out with you property in his hands, in some
>jurisdictions deadly force is legal and the property owner will not be
>prosecuted. I cited the law in Texas. Both you and Roberto were wrong.
Roberto and I were talking about the ethics of killing people, not the
law in Texas.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:39 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:46:28
+0100;
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ch5uu$gm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/browser.html
>>
>> NS 4 (the trouble maker) is only 9%, IE (4 &5) are at 86%.
>
>Unfortunately, for me the NS4 percentage is rather higher. A lot of me
>regular visitors are not on the best terms with MS... ;)
>
>> When writing reasonably complex pages, you can almost always divivde the
>> workload to:
>> Building it: 50%
>> Testing & fixing it in IE: 5% (It usually just works, but I will give a
>> reasonable figure)
>> Testing & fixing it in NS4: 45%
>
>Exactly! That is what annoys me...
>
>> BTW, there are still people who are using V1.0 browsers (more IE than NS,
>> though), so I wouldn't scorn V3 browsers.
>> NS3 was a masterpiece.
>
>Yes, there are. But that really is their choice, and they have to live with
>whatever their browser shows.
>
>NS4 was a step backwards from 3!
Well, you've well justified that point from your perspective, I gotta
say. Still, from mine, there's nothing better available.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:40 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:30:53
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I gotta admit, Michael, you do seem to be a very level headed fellow.
>> You make good points.
>
>Cheers.
>
>I do so enjoy finding people who I can have a good serious discussion with.
Thanks. Likewise.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:42 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:45:16
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >User? You can't comment until you have tried to develop for it.
>>
>> You said it was an appalling bad browser; you didn't say it was a pain
>> in the ass for developers. It may be your presumption, as a "web
>> meister" that the latter equates to the former, but that's being
>> ego-centric.
>
>Perhaps it is... In the sense of doing what it is supposed to though, it is
>appallingly bad. It is also very large, clumsy and badly coded.
>
>What I actually equated was a lack of fitness for its purpose and its being
>a bad browser...
Well, I have noticed that it is a very good browser, in comparison to
the available alternatives. This doesn't require much, admittedly,
since it is what I have been using for years, and nothing compelling has
occurred to cause that to change, is all. I'm not alone, but I'm sure
eventually the installed base will shrink to the point where something
better or worse is the only option I have. Perhaps you *shouldn't* take
all that time making up for NS4's inadequacies, to hasten that day, but
as long as monopolization is what rules the industry, I'm not going to
change for anyone else's convenience.
>> I like that; it is part of what makes Netscape a useful browser, despite
>> its rather questionable design. I don't care how a site is "supposed to
>> look"; I want the striped down version, because I want it fast, minimal,
>> and text-based, if I can get it. Whether that makes things easy for the
>> server or the developer is definitely something I don't directly care
>> about.
>
>There are text based browsers for such things and they work much better at
>it than netscape ;)
No, a text-based browser is not suitable to my needs. Text-based
web-pages, however, are.
>Your stripped down version will not necessarily be fast though, as the
>server has had to prepare it for you.
That's the server's fault or the designers fault, not the fault of the
fact that I want one stripped down.
>Also, it may not be entirely legible
>and navigation will probably take you though a larger number of pages.
This is unfortunately true of every page on the web, in my experience.
I haven't noticed a great deal of difference the few times I've used
other browsers.
>We aren't on about badly designed but pretty sites here, we're on about the
>well designed ones which are both fast and visually appealing.
I realize that, but I would prefer that visually appealing took a back
seat to informative, and that isn't generally the case. Not that it is
an issue for the web page developer, precisely, but with the entire
"industry" surrounding "the web". I would prefer that it be an
interlinked web of pages of information. Instead, it has become a way
of trying to build some sort of 'GUI console' system; inconsistent,
disparate, and unorganized. Yes, I know it sounds like the old
"academic origin whining in the face of commercial reality", but that
does not make it incorrect.
Every time I hear a web meister complain that NS4 doesn't support HTML
correctly, I get the idea that the problem is with modern HTML, not NS4.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
