BSD Question's.

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Danial Thom
>Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 6:28 PM
>To: Beech Rintoul; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: BSD Question's.
>
>
>
>
>--- Beech Rintoul <akbeech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 26 December 2005 07:24 am, Danial
>> Thom wrote:
>> > --- dick hoogendijk <dick at nagual.st> wrote:
>> > > On 24 Dec Kent Stewart wrote:
>> > > > There is also the problem that some sites
>> are
>> > >
>> > > designed to work with
>> > >
>> > > > Internet Explorer. You can try to visit
>> with
>> > >
>> > > firefox but that doesn't
>> > >
>> > > > always work even with firefox on XP.
>> > >
>> > > NO site should be designed to work with
>> > > IExplorer. I know it's done, but
>> > > it should not! Why do we have W3C? If we
>> could
>> > > all just do things "by
>> > > the book" the internet would be a much
>> nicer
>> > > place to visit.
>> > >
>> > > People who design for IExplorer are bad!
>> They
>> > > have microsoft in mind and
>> > > _not_ the visitors. I hate it when choice
>> gets
>> > > violated! It should be
>> > > called a crime against freedom.
>> >
>> > No, you're wrong here. You're letting your
>> > religious philosophy cloud your business
>> sense.
>> > You develop to service the highest percentage
>> of
>> > your expected viewer base. The truth is that
>> the
>> > vast majority of visitors to most web sites
>> are
>> > going to be using IE. While using unnecessary
>> > features as a primary component of your site
>> that
>> > ONLY work with IE is foolish, you can't
>> > compromise your design just so that it will
>> work
>> > with the 3% of religious fanatics that refuse
>> to
>> > install IE on thier machines. Business is
>> about
>> > numbers, and the numbers say that your site
>> HAS
>> > to work with IE, and its nice if it works
>> with
>> > others. I generally test with IE, Firefox and
>> > Netscape and I don't care much about much
>> else.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a friend in the travel biz who gets an
>> > unusual amount of traffic from AOL, because
>> most
>> > of his customers are not computer people. His
>> > site needs to be well tested on AOL, where I
>> > couldn't really give a rat's behind if my
>> > commercial site works with AOL or not. You
>> have
>> > to make sure your site works with the
>> greatest
>> > majority of browsers available that will be
>> > accessing any given site.
>> >
>> > Its unfortunate that MS does what they want
>> > rather than following the standards, but in
>> > reality the standards should follow MS,
>> because
>> > its really the only way to make everything
>> work.
>> > Much of Microsoft's "extra" stuff is pretty
>> > useful and arguably better; its time the unix
>> > geeks get over it and stop whining about the
>> big
>> > bad bully for the good of the big picture. MS
>> > isn't going away anytime soon. The truth is
>> that
>> > anything MS does is a de-facto standard,
>> whether
>> > you like it or not.
>> >
>> > DT
>> 
>> I guess we should just throw out w3c and assign
>> the task to microsoft. While 
>> wer'e at it lets get rid of all net standards.
>> After all microsoft is so far 
>> ahead we'll never catch up.
>> 
>> Beech
>
>
>Cisco makes their own standards for networking,
>and if you want to play in the game you have to
>be compatible.

They do - however they clearly delineate between
their standard (for example IGRP) and the public
standard (ie: OSPF) and when they support both,
they endeavor to adhere to the public standard,
in their implementation of it.

There would not be a problem if Microsoft inserted a
switch in IE where the user could select M-HTML
(Microsoft HTML) or W3C-HTML (actual HTML).  The
problem is that Microsoft intermixes the two.

>It doesn't really matter what the
>"accepted" standard is; its the one that *most*
>people are using. 
>

If W3C adopted all the Microsoft changes to HTML
it would not help, Microsoft would break them in
future versions.  Even
in the Microsoft way, there is no consistency in
Microsoft's own so-called standards.

>A guy I used to work with used to say at least
>once a day "The great thing about standards is
>that there are so many to choose from". 

I think a lot of people would be happy to go with
the Microsoft standard if it wasn't a constantly
changing target.  It defeats the purpose of
a standard to begin with.

Ted