| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Opera to MS: Get real about interoperability, Mr Gates | |
|
||
| Time: 00:09 EST/05:09 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Last week Bill Gates got the interoperability religion. Allegedly - given Microsoft's long and sometimes less than constructive history in the field of interoperability, a certain amount of scepticism is perhaps appropriate. Hakon Lie, Chief Technology Officer of long-standing Microsoft competitor Opera Software, welcomes Gates' new-found enthusiasm for interoperability, but in the following response to Gates, has just a few suggestions about what Microsoft might do to actually achieve it. So, Mr. Gates, writes Hakon Lie, you say you believe in interoperability. Then why, pray tell, doesn't the web page of your interoperability communiqué conform to the HTML4 standard as it claims to? Why does the W3C validator diagnose 126 errors on your page? You say you believe in interoperability. Then why is your document served in different versions to different browsers? Why does your server sniff out the Opera browser and send it different style sheets from the ones you send to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer (WinIE)? As a result, Opera renders the page differently. You say you believe in interoperability. Why does the Hotmail service deny Opera access to the same scripts as Microsoft's own browser? As a result, Opera users can't delete junk mail. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:38:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.173.35.189) at 2/14/2005 9:49:58 AM |
| Surely Hakon Lie knows the answers to all of his why questions, and they have nothing to do with Microsoft wanting to be interoperable - unless they mean interoperable like they were with DR-DOS - or perhaps Bill Gates mispronounced inoperable software. |
| #2 By 9589 (66.57.197.203) at 2/14/2005 11:12:15 AM |
|
Let's review: Microsoft has 90%+ of the browser market; Opera has, well, a laughably small percentage of the browser market. Now who sets the standard - Microsoft is the standard - get over it Opera weiner.
"Hakon Lie, Chief Technology Officer of long-standing Microsoft competitor Opera" - "long standing" yeah, right! They have been in business a couple of years and make a crap product that you have to pay $40 bucks for if you want the non ad version. But, oh boy, it complies with the "standard" - pathetic. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 2/14/2005 11:41:04 PM |
|
#4 "Now who sets the standard"
The W3C you ignoramus! "get over it Opera weiner." Is that why Microsoft had to pay Opera after they were caught once again of trying to make the MSN page look like crap in Opera? #9 Just reply to Parkker's request with his own answer: "I can think of a lot of Open Source innovations. But I won't tax your brain by mentioning them. People like you tend to have their heads explode when confronted with reality." #10 "I can think of a lot of Microsoft innovations" You can think of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too... congratulations! This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Monday, February 14, 2005 at 23:43. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/15/2005 12:56:06 AM |
|
The W3C sets exactly dork!
Most have withdrawn from it as it was unable to find its collective backside - despite wearing it as a hat. It did provide "recommendations" which were based on a lot more speculation and European protectionism than science. Ask this - where is the relevance - simply, how can any 1% supplier service more than 90% of any market, grade school lunch room, demand for autos, or any <deleted> thing else? It can't - no more than you can milk two cows and feed a continent - sell one, buy a bull! This basic, however brutal understanding is why the US crushes all others - the simple fact that a long, long while ago, we accepted that one has to bring living game down with a rock in order to eat. Gawd, it reminds me of the halfwits at many a NATO conference, sitting around poorly set tables - while every planning order and formation with actual teeth looked very familiar to US issue... I recall one very eloquent American General who said, "Yeah...well, that is all well and good, but someone's got to get it done... |
| #5 By 12071 (203.173.35.189) at 2/15/2005 10:01:01 AM |
|
#12 You continue to spew your usual crap but I'm glad that you've finally found that enter key and started to create what appear to be paragraphs. It makes it a lot easier to read at least.
"...European protectionism...US crushes all others..." What a great suprise, your typical pro-US, anti-European sort. Try reading up about the history of your great nation, you might find that Europe and Europeans play a great role. "the simple fact that a long, long while ago, we accepted that one has to bring living game down with a rock in order to eat." No offence but "we" as in humans accepted that a "long, long while" before what you call the United States of America was ever dreamt up. Stop being an arrogant prick for a second and listen to others, you might find that although you won't agree with everything they say, they might get you thinking about some things! "Gawd, it reminds me of the halfwits at many a NATO conference" Yes it's a real pity that they can't all be as intelligent as you are. Actually, it's a pity that you're wasting your time here rather than teaching those halfwits how to get things done! Why is it that you, like Parkker, have to bring up completely irrelevant, ignorant, meaningless generalisations like that? What the hell does the US or Europe have to do with Microsoft's inabilities to follow what the W3C have set out. The developers of other browsers seemed to have done a much better job! Just accept the fact that other than yourself and your fellow MS-is-the-only-way chums most people go by what the W3C have said, not by what Microsoft say. If you don't like that... tough, stop bringing your own ignorant agenda to the table. |
| #6 By 9589 (66.57.197.203) at 2/15/2005 11:08:02 AM |
| #11 - Hey, Chris, you just go on now and develop those ecommerce web sites strickly by W3C "standards". But, don't be alarmed if those cheeky bast**ds, known as customers, don't bother to visit them because they look like crap or just don't function using what the world uses to view them with - IE. lol |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 2/15/2005 12:03:44 PM |
|
#16, your observations are not supported by historical facts.
Which country's institutions and national science foundation invented, fielded and released these technologies? You know that answer as well as I do. The W3C's relevance is about nill and if you've ever attended a single review, you'd know that. There were fewer than a hundred people around a table voting to release this stuff. None of the voting members were from outside the US. The results were signed into law in Oct 1992 - more than 20 years after we'd been using the stuff on a daily basis. The first implementations used ancient IMPS bolted to Kleinschmidt model 19's we hand programmed each time, sync'd manually and "poked" at less than 25 wpm. Headers were manually scribbed. Ironically, in 1980, in Munich, the first time we attempted to share this to keep all on the same page, we were rejected... we came back three years later with a man/machine readbale format that was accepted. My head just spins when I read this bunk - you should see what is in the works and this time, I do hope it is never offered - at least not for free. And anyone who knows how ref zones are set up, or should I say not set up in Apache on a Linuces and how so often, one address is used in front of thousands of sites running under IIS, would laugh themsleves sick at anyone holding out how dominate Apache is, and at Netcraft. Anyone ever have to add another NIC just to support SSL for a client running that junk? Give me a freaking break! Truth be known, the real numbers would be very hard to know, but they'd track consistently with the markets - which are not dominated in any way by what is reflected at Netcraft. I've had to do that this week for a client on OSS and I was made ill at giving up a routable host just because they could not successfully set up a ref zone... There are numbers and then there is truth and there is a recorded history that many of you are to young, or too isolated to be expected to understand. That's fine, but I would encourage each of you to explore that history and from its source. The minutes are all publicly available and you'd feel a lot differently about the whole matter. I recall one European minister that mocked me personally - he said, "Packet....? <made phone dialing noises> and added, just use a phone..." The entire room laughed right along with him. [Munich, August 23rd 1980]. Todd, and I split and went back to work to explain it better - his Dad, who co-founded Compaq suggested we just do it despite them - after leaving the effort in disgust. Now you all want to re-write that history...Gack, spit, puke... |
| #8 By 9589 (66.57.197.203) at 2/15/2005 12:44:33 PM |
|
Boy, when someone on a Microsoft oriented web site doesn't agree (go figure!) with you open sore fan boys you really lay on the ignoramuses and ignorance stuff. lol
Meanwhile, Netcraft regularly publishes a document regarding what OS and web site application is being used on SSL sites. You know those sites that actually conduct business on the Internet (not what you use in your parent's basement). The cost is on a subscription basis and is around $2200 dollars a year. Anyway, that document details that IIS has around 60% market share or about the same market share for Microsoft server operating systems as a whole. Here is the link to their advertisment page regarding this report: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/04/09/netcraft_ssl_survey.html By the way, our web sites running either IIS5.0 or IIS 6.0 and either Windows 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003 serve millions of customers, but are reported on Netcraft as Netscape Enterprise 6.0 running on Solaris 9! Its a hoot! This post was edited by jdhawk on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 12:45. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/15/2005 1:21:39 PM |
|
fubar - "You're saying the Netcraft numbers aren't valid. "
The numbers are valid for certain questions, but they aren't valid for what most open source zealots try to claim they are for. That is, they aren't valid as a tool to determine web server market penetration. It's incredibly unfortunate that we have people such as Parkker, lketchum, mooresa56 and such defending Microsoft here by using ridiculous logic. It certainly makes my life as a MS advocate harder because my voice is overshadowed by their noise. But that doesn't mean the open source zealots are right, and you're making a terrible mistake in assuming the points aren't valid just because these idiots can't defend them properly. I guess what I'm saying is... you should stop and think about the issues, not just respond in kneejerk fashion. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 13:32. |
| #10 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/15/2005 6:33:23 PM |
|
#23, Regarding the Netcraft "readings" of our web sites, hint: it may be because of the servers that we in front of the web servers - you think? We have intrusion detection servers, firewalls and content management switches in front of our web servers. Its obvious what the firewalls and IDS servers do, but the content management switches enhance the user experience by offloading load balancing and SSL as well as compressing HTML back to the customer. It is that "labryinth" and certain purposeful obsfucation that throws off the Netcraft data. It seems to be working!
By the way, our corporate IT made it possible, in part, to win for the fourth year in a row a prestigious customer satisfaction award within our industry. Must be our "pace" as you put it, eh, fubar! Also, you have no doubt checked out www.tpc.org. There you will find Microsoft's OS and IIS out classing the competition in the TPC-W Web eCommerce category in both performance and price/performance. Its not doing to bad in the other TPC categories either. |
| #11 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 2/15/2005 7:40:58 PM |
|
fubar - Well first of all... ClosedStandard is a troll. He's actually an anti-MS zealot who tries to stir the pot here. The problem is that lketchum and the other idiots don't get this and follow his same style.
These guys are a lot like Michael Moore... With friends like them, who needs enemies. As for Netcraft... The problem with their numbers is that they have no way of counting intranet or web farm servers. that is... www.sodablue.org counts as one on their figures, even if it served 14 billion hits per day and was backed by a web farm of 1,000 servers. Since it's just one domain name... it's just one on their stats list. Similarly they over count domains which are just place holders or are vanity sites. I have like five domains all pointed to the same IP address... they count as 5 different web entities, even though all of them are vanity sites, and only one of them gets any real usage. Of the 14 million or so sites noted by netcraft, probably 60-70% fall into this category. My company has about 300 or so servers sitting behind a firewall, serving up applications to our users. Only a handful of these are counted by netcraft because they have external exposure. The point is, if you want to look at marketshare in terms of where you should target your product focus... Netcraft is going to give you bad advice. They're going to tell you that there is more demand for Apache. They'll probably even tell you that there is demand for PHP since it's on 50% of the web servers. But 80-90% of the development jobs out there are really for J2EE and .NET web development. Example... I search monster.com for jobs in Minneapolis area on keyword narrowed to Computers, Software. PHP - 4 J2EE - 9 .NET - 20 Java - 49 C# - 9 VB - 24 C++ - 19 Oracle - 39 SQL Server - 31 MySQL - 3 So much for the Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP theory of development, it barely makes up 10%. you can run the same query for Silicon Valley and you'll get similar results. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 2/15/2005 10:56:17 PM |
|
#17 "Finally, Chris, speaking of generalizations, please don't consider all Americans the same either. Not all of us shoot from the mouth"
I didn't mean to infer that all Americans are the same, they're not! I'm just sick of the those ignorant ones on the "pro-US, anti-Europe" wave. #18 All web applications developed for my company follow the W3C specs as closely as possible. In those circumstances where certain browsers cannot conform to those standards or in the case of IE which seems to randomly pick how it chooses to display items if you use CSS, I make sure that I code around those faults. I do this so that anyone can access those web applications, not just those using IE. I guess you might think of it like interoperability - your messiah is using it as his latest buzz word. #27 "You mean like this post of yours Chris, where you admitted you were a bigot?" I'm in no way a bigot. I was just expressing my own opinion on the faith-based logic that you and lketchum etc like to spew constantly and the fact that I love to mock you for it. I've mentioned this many times now, go back to school Parkker, learn to read and comprehend, then come bak here and try to form a logical argument without spewing your propagenda. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:38:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
