Mama Cass wrote: > > In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Christopher Jahn > say these wise words: > > > > But as usual, MS added features and convinced users to become > > reliant on them rather than deal with the issues that users > > actually aak for. After all, how long did it take to release a > > secure and stable OS that didn't require massive patches within > > a few weeks of release. >... > uPnP is grossly insecure, requiring all XP users to download a patch > to prevent someone from potentially taking over the use of said > windowsXP machiene via the internet.
As I said in my reply to Christopher Jahn, Microsoft knows that customers favor features over security. Especially when their dominance allows them to convince customers that security problems are (for example) `Internet worms' rather than `Microsoft Outlook worms' or `Microsoft Internet Explorer worms'. >... > Um, by writing a new rendering engine, Mozilla has produced a superior > engine to what IE has, Mozilla's rendering engine is considerably slower than what IE has, and it handles the markup on fewer Web sites than the one IE has. Or do you mean that because Mozilla's layout engine is newer, it is somehow better? Are you under the delusion (to borrow a metaphor from Joel Spolsky) that source code rusts? > and has also made that engine freely available > as an open source project Open source is a means to an end, not an end in itself. > - two highly laudable outcomes! Laudable, yes, but not currently *better*, in any respect except compliance with those recommendations published by the W3C. (And possibly embeddability, though I'm not an expert on that.) >... > > > Do you have any examples, or are you just trolling? > > > (Kerberos doesn't count; this is the Web we're talking about.) > > > > Take a look at some of the crap FrontPage produces - lots of > > incomplete or non-standard code. And IE displays it all. > > That's because Micro$hit planned this to happen - that Frontpage would > produce substandard code, and that Internet eXPloder would be capable > of displaying that code - contrary to the W3C standards! >... Ooh. Your lack of examples was *very* convincing, especially when combined with your juvenile spellings of `Microsoft' and `Explorer' ... And, well, that exclamation mark at the end really proves your argument beyond all doubt. I'm impressed. -- Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla UI Design component default assignee thing <http://mozilla.org/>
