f



I can't see my Web site from Internet Explorer because I use LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Help,

I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.

Nick
0
mark1822 (191)
8/7/2004 6:05:59 AM
comp.lang.php 32646 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

50 Replies
701 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 46

If you use all the right rules and make sure everything is standard, it 
should work. But in saying that, Ie throw's all the rules out the 
window. From my experience, it's the other browsers that you need to 
check with. IE will normally work, if you get it working on the others.

to Run IE you have to run M$. You may aswell do a dual boot or look at 
VMware. You can't run one without the other, IE is so interwoven within 
Windows.



Mudge wrote:

>Help,
>
>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
>
>Nick
>  
>
0
jncsmith (17)
8/7/2004 6:53:07 AM
Mudge wrote:
> Help,
> 
> I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
> I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
> 
> Nick

not recently i learn that you can use several different tools to run 
windows app's on Linux :

1. "Not Emulators" : WINE, Crossover, Cedega
2. Virtual Machine : VMWare, Bochs
3. Semi Virtual Machine : win4lin
4. .NET apps using MONO
5. Qemu : http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

also i think you will find these links a helpful reading:

http://www.efuse.com/Publish/testing_one__two__three.html#HelpFromFriends
http://www.anybrowser.org/

maxim.
0
hq4ever
8/7/2004 11:14:01 AM
In article <bj_Qc.102911$eM2.70938@attbi_s51>, mark1822@hotmail.com 
says...
> Help,
> 
> I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
> I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.

As a major web developer you should already know that you have to test 
on multiple platforms and with various versions of browsers - or you're 
not really in the big time yet.

You can install IE 6 on Linux using CrossOver to act as a pseudo windows 
environment. I've tested CrossOver on SUSE 9.1 and everything inside 
Office XP works except for Outlook connecting to Exchange.

In our development labs we have several machines that have a single 
purpose - to test different web browsers with sites. A single machine 
running Windows 98SE with Netscape, Opera, IE 5, then Win 98Se with 
another version of Netscape and IE 6, then a couple more machines with 
Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows ME (yuck), (Firefox is on the 2000 
and newer machines too) and then several with SUSE and Redhat - these 
machines are only used to test the sites against, not for development. 
If you follow this approach you can easily ensure that your app will 
work across the vast differences in users out there. (You could also use 
a product and multi-boot to the different configs if you don't have 
enough machines).

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/7/2004 11:45:22 AM
Hi

Go get a machine with the Micro$oft virus on it.  Comes with IE.  Do the 
updates.  If you don't want to spend a little time loading the windoz 
OS, go to you local computer store and look at the low end pentII or 
III's.  $100 up if you dicker.  I have an old dell Pent, 128Meg 200Mhz ( 
a real burner, isn't it ) just for this purpose.  The Dell has Netscape, 
IE and  Mozaic.  The Mac finally broke and I don't see the need anymore.

If you do standard stuff with standard attributes, all browser will 
render your stuff; some differently, but it will show up all the same. 
If you are CSS'n, that is a different matter and it is a good idea to 
give your page a looksee

Mudge wrote:
> Help,
> 
> I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
> I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
> 
> Nick

-- 
Sound Networking
Suite 106
10011 3rd Avenue SE
Everett, WA 98208

425.290.9663 voice
425.740.2004 dialup/modem

0
8/7/2004 11:59:46 AM
Mudge wrote:
> 
> How the hell do I make sure everything looks ok on 
 > Internet Explorer?

You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work 
complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.

bblackmoor
2004-08-07
0
8/7/2004 2:54:14 PM
I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
Blackmoor contained the following:

>You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work 
>complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.

Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
the rest of the world.

-- 
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
0
blthecat (1680)
8/7/2004 3:59:06 PM
Geoff Berrow wrote:

> I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
> Blackmoor contained the following:
> 
>>You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
>>complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
> 
> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
> the rest of the world.
> 


Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE?    and then maybe the
mozilla browsers and then opera?


So, it seems like it mostly just needs to work on IE and then mozilla,
netscapte and opera.

What do you think?
0
mark1822 (191)
8/7/2004 5:38:10 PM
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:38:10 +0000, Mudge wrote:

> Geoff Berrow wrote:
> 
>> I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
>> Blackmoor contained the following:
>> 
>>>You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
>>>complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
>> 
>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>> the rest of the world.
>> 
> 
> 
> Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE?    and then maybe the
> mozilla browsers and then opera?
> 
> 
> So, it seems like it mostly just needs to work on IE and then mozilla,
> netscapte and opera.
> 
> What do you think?


Coding "for IE" is like asking a graffiti artist to decorate your 1900s
classic home.. it's just wrong.

Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based than
anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE.. but just
because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced upon people)
doesn't make it right.

IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/7/2004 6:48:56 PM
Ian.H wrote:

>
> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>
I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90% of
people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions losing out
because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.

I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
:-)  But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
stuff I regularly use.

Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE being
'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
My .02$
Pjotr


0
x33159 (115)
8/7/2004 9:07:19 PM
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:07:19 +0200, Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:

> Ian.H wrote:
> 
>>
>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
>> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
>> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>
> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90% of
> people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions losing out
> because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.


I definitely agree that no browser is 100% strictly compliant.. made worse
IMO with the releases of CSS2 / 3 before some browsers are even properly
CSS1 compliant it seems at time, but, things must move forwards =)

I write all my code to CSS2 / XHTML1.1 (Strict) standards which I find in
general, gives me at least a good base to work on.

I find that I can get over most issues with IE rendering things
differently with some CSS, for example:


/* IE */
div.foo {width:auto; height:300px;}

/* Moz etc */
html>body div.foo {width:auto; height:auto; min-height:300px;}


IE pics and renders the first (IE handles 'height' in some really weird
fashions) and not the second.. whereas _browsers_ will use the second. End
of the day, the results look the same in a lot of browsers.

FWIW.. I find Konqueror a real bitch with some code, moreso than IE.


> I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
> public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
> :-)  But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
> performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
> stuff I regularly use.


Sounds kind of like my scenario here =)

For ages, I ran FreeBSD as my only OS.. but through my teens I DJ'd (over
about 9 years) and love creating some tracks.. for this, windoze plays a
much better part for music creation packages than *nix (I'm no pro, it's
all for fun). Due to this, I pretty much use my win box as a dev box and
now my FreeBSD box works more as a gateway / firewall and a local dev
server than anything else. As it has no monitor attached, I also run
vmware on the win box which has KDE and windowmaker installed for which I
use it for testing Konqueror and others. Lynx is of course always used too
(surprising how many people trying CSS for layout / positioning fail to
have a readable page in a text-only browser =) ).

I like to try and cover as many bases as I can.


> Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE being
> 'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
> My .02$
> Pjotr


I'd _personally_ say "more popular" than "standard".. but I do understand
where you're coming from on this.. if you really want to hit a market,
spiting IE and ignoring it as such, would be more detremental than
beneficial. I have a _very_ strong dislike to all redmond stuff, but it's
what's used for the majority day in, day out, so I do try my best too to
make it work in all situations =)



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/7/2004 10:50:37 PM
>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>> the rest of the world.
>> 
>
>
>Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE?    and then maybe the
>mozilla browsers and then opera?

Which version of IE?  Some web developers complain that there
is a much larger difference between IE and IE than, say, between
Mozilla and Opera, or even between Mozilla and IE.

Only testing with the latest 6 versions of IE may turn out to be a 
big mistake, as you may be leaving out more than half the clients
surfing the web.

					Gordon L. Burditt
0
8/8/2004 12:43:49 AM
"Pjotr Wedersteers" <x33159@westerterp.com> wrote in message
news:4115446a$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
of
> people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions losing
out
> because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.

In the case of Mozilla we have a case of a more politically correct solution
losing out to a more commercially viable one. Kinda like a co-op coffeeshop
getting crushed by Starbucks.



0
chernyshevsky (2297)
8/8/2004 2:25:28 AM
Ian.H wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:38:10 +0000, Mudge wrote:
> 
>> Geoff Berrow wrote:
>> 
>>> I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
>>> Blackmoor contained the following:
>>> 
>>>>You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
>>>>complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
>>> 
>>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>>> the rest of the world.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE?    and then maybe the
>> mozilla browsers and then opera?
>> 
>> 
>> So, it seems like it mostly just needs to work on IE and then mozilla,
>> netscapte and opera.
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Coding "for IE" is like asking a graffiti artist to decorate your 1900s
> classic home.. it's just wrong.
> 
> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based than
> anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE.. but just
> because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced upon people)
> doesn't make it right.
> 
> IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Ian

I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority of
the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not the
standards.

Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because they
bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.   

0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:23:46 AM
Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:

> Ian.H wrote:
> 
>>
>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
>> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
>> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>
> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
> of people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions
> losing out because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
> 
> I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
> public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
> :-)  But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
> performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
> stuff I regularly use.
> 
> Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE being
> 'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
> My .02$
> Pjotr


haha -- 90 percent = standard. That is a good way to think about it. 

You know, if everything worked just right, w3 would be out of a job.


Lots of .02 cents around here. Wish I could collect. 

Yea Yea ideas are .02 cents, but I wish I could collect the .02 cents. 
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:31:54 AM
Chung Leong wrote:

> "Pjotr Wedersteers" <x33159@westerterp.com> wrote in message
> news:4115446a$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
>> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
>> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
>> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
> of
>> people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions losing
> out
>> because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
> 
> In the case of Mozilla we have a case of a more politically correct
> solution losing out to a more commercially viable one. Kinda like a co-op
> coffeeshop getting crushed by Starbucks.

Yea, fucking commerciality and stupid people ruin everything.
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:32:40 AM
Ian.H wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:07:19 +0200, Pjotr Wedersteers wrote:
> 
>> Ian.H wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for
>>> IE.. but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been
>>> forced upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>>
>> I agree it isn't right, and where I can I try to avoid issues where my
>> coding has to leave the w3c standards path in favour of IE (not that
>> mozilla, opera, et all are all fully compliant, but agreed, more so than
>> IE), but when push comes to shove it just is the way things are, and 90%
>> of people use IE. Plenty of examples of superior technical solutions
>> losing out because of stubornness and neglect of marketing and numbers.
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that no browser is 100% strictly compliant.. made worse
> IMO with the releases of CSS2 / 3 before some browsers are even properly
> CSS1 compliant it seems at time, but, things must move forwards =)
> 
> I write all my code to CSS2 / XHTML1.1 (Strict) standards which I find in
> general, gives me at least a good base to work on.
> 
> I find that I can get over most issues with IE rendering things
> differently with some CSS, for example:
> 
> 
> /* IE */
> div.foo {width:auto; height:300px;}
> 
> /* Moz etc */
> html>body div.foo {width:auto; height:auto; min-height:300px;}
> 
> 
> IE pics and renders the first (IE handles 'height' in some really weird
> fashions) and not the second.. whereas _browsers_ will use the second. End
> of the day, the results look the same in a lot of browsers.
> 
> FWIW.. I find Konqueror a real bitch with some code, moreso than IE.
> 
> 
>> I will always have atleast one winbox around when testing stuff that goes
>> public. I would not even rely on WINE and such. I know, I am stubborn too
>> :-)  But another advantage of an old windoze box is I get to see the
>> performance and such. And right now I work on an XP box because of other
>> stuff I regularly use.
> 
> 
> Sounds kind of like my scenario here =)
> 
> For ages, I ran FreeBSD as my only OS.. but through my teens I DJ'd (over
> about 9 years) and love creating some tracks.. for this, windoze plays a
> much better part for music creation packages than *nix (I'm no pro, it's
> all for fun). Due to this, I pretty much use my win box as a dev box and
> now my FreeBSD box works more as a gateway / firewall and a local dev
> server than anything else. As it has no monitor attached, I also run
> vmware on the win box which has KDE and windowmaker installed for which I
> use it for testing Konqueror and others. Lynx is of course always used too
> (surprising how many people trying CSS for layout / positioning fail to
> have a readable page in a text-only browser =) ).
> 
> I like to try and cover as many bases as I can.
> 
> 
>> Well, to each his own I guess. But let's not argue too much about IE
>> being 'nonstandard'. 90% is pretty much standard I'd say.
>> My .02$
>> Pjotr
> 
> 
> I'd _personally_ say "more popular" than "standard".. but I do understand
> where you're coming from on this.. if you really want to hit a market,
> spiting IE and ignoring it as such, would be more detremental than
> beneficial. I have a _very_ strong dislike to all redmond stuff, but it's
> what's used for the majority day in, day out, so I do try my best too to
> make it work in all situations =)
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Ian

Ian,

What reference or book do you use to make sure that you are CSS2 and XHTML
compliant?  Other people? 

0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:36:59 AM
Brandon Blackmoor wrote:

> Mudge wrote:
>> 
>> How the hell do I make sure everything looks ok on
>  > Internet Explorer?
> 
> You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work
> complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
> 
> bblackmoor
> 2004-08-07

Standards are really great, but they are only an idea. So when it comes to
building a Web site, fuck em. I'm interested in what is actually the most
workable right now -- not some distant future. Maybe writing the Web site
in a compliant manner, and then doing work arounds for browsers is a good
idea, but lets be real here and focus on the task and not injustices.
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 7:03:04 AM
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 06:23:46 +0000, Mudge wrote:

>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based than
>> anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE.. but just
>> because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced upon people)
>> doesn't make it right.
>> 
>> IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.

> 
> I don't give a shit about standards.


Enough said... sadly, but you continue living in your little redmond
bubble while the rest of us get on with the real world.



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/8/2004 9:52:31 AM
Mudge wrote:

> Standards are really great, but they are only an idea. So when it comes to
> building a Web site, fuck em. I'm interested in what is actually the most
> workable right now -- not some distant future. Maybe writing the Web site
> in a compliant manner, and then doing work arounds for browsers is a good
> idea, but lets be real here and focus on the task and not injustices.

I look at it from a different perspective. When I write presentation layer,
I will make sure it's standards compliant and also that it works similar in
most browsers. In most simple enough cases, this is possible - you may have
to tweak your CSS or Javascript a little but you'll find a solution. IE,
Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror/Safari implement enough standards closely enough
to make this possible.

What I find annoying is web "designers" or "developers" that not only ignore
standards but also deny access to 5-10% of their customers/users/visitors
outright; not for the reason that it was impossible or not feasible to
accomplish compliance, but out of pure ignorance. Arguing that it's OK that
your presentation layer is only usable for IE and nothing else is similar
to saying you can/should use VBScript instead of Javascript/ECMAScript. In
many cases, you do have to be clueless and/or trying extremely hard to make
your presentation layer IE-only - using unnecessarily heavy IE-only
JScript-ing and ActiveX controls. Most of the times this happens for not
knowing any better and has nothing to do with browser standards compliance.

I don't know what you call "workable" but, at least for me (and the projects
that I have worked on), a site that does not work 5-10% of the time is
definitely NOT workable.
0
agt1 (138)
8/8/2004 10:10:55 AM
In article <10v9h0dur48i8j2ldpioo1j6o6i0eu5acu@4ax.com>, 
blthecat@ckdog.co.uk says...
> I noticed that Message-ID: <2nk8oiF1qpo4U1@uni-berlin.de> from Brandon
> Blackmoor contained the following:
> 
> >You do not. Nor should you. What you should do is ensure that your work 
> >complies with web standards: CSS2, XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1), and ECMA-262.
> 
> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
> the rest of the world.

This says it perfectly - if the client is set on something where the 
platform is for a targeted audience, one where the audience is using a 
known browser. In this case, we would also code to the browser (any 
browser) in order to save the client cost.

In cases where the client is going to the public, you have to code for 
two platforms in most cases - the IE users and the NON-IE group. It's 
fairly easy to detect which browser is being used and add the code that 
provides the format based on the differences - we've been doing this 
since IIS 4.

Now, after reading all the posts in this thread, I understand the people 
that only code to the standards, but if you only code to the standards 
you can miss a large number of custom features that a browser provides 
that other browsers don't provide. 

If you were doing it for a public site you really do need to check the 
site on several platforms:

Win 98SE, Win 2000, Win XP - Netscape 4.7X, IE 5, IE 6, Firefox 0.9.1
MAC pre-OS-X and OS-X - check IE running on OS-X, really weird sometimes
Linux - RH9 and some other distro - Firefox and a couple others.

If you checked the site on these platforms/browsers you would be amazed 
at how the "standards" coded site would render differently on each.

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/8/2004 12:05:07 PM
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:05:07 +0000, Leythos wrote:

[ snip ]


> It's 
> fairly easy to detect which browser is being used and add the code that 
> provides the format based on the differences - we've been doing this 
> since IIS 4.


You're kidding right?


   $ wget --user-agent=SomeWeirdBrowser-0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 your-site.com


Good luck ;)



Regards,

  Ian


PS: Obviously, wget isn't the only tool to be able to change a user-agent
string, detecting this _IS NOT_ reliable.

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/8/2004 12:58:19 PM
"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tNjRc.109295$eM2.61184@attbi_s51...
> You know, if everything worked just right, w3 would be out of a job.

Down with the W3C. Software development by decree is un-American.


0
chernyshevsky (2297)
8/8/2004 1:33:07 PM
Mudge wrote:
> Help,
> 
> I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
> I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
> 
> Nick

Stop by these web sites, great information!!

http://www.alistapart.com              -- a treasure of information for the web designer

http://www.positioniseverything.net    -- this one shows you IE errors vs Mozilla correctness.  Exellent training!!

0
datagoob (43)
8/8/2004 4:04:13 PM
> 
> Now, after reading all the posts in this thread, I understand the people 
> that only code to the standards, but if you only code to the standards 
> you can miss a large number of custom features that a browser provides 
> that other browsers don't provide. 

Well, since nonstandard "features" are pretty much the enemy of simplicity
and security, I can live without 'em.
0
8/8/2004 5:40:36 PM
>> 
>>   Ian
> 
> I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority of
> the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not the
> standards.
> 
> Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because they
> bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.

Also looking long term, the more people there are who "don't give a shit
about standards", the longer the long term will be.

Coding to the quirks of a software product rewards the creator of that
product for making it difficult to get our work done. Refusing to do so
penalizes him or her.
0
8/8/2004 5:44:48 PM
Gordon Burditt wrote:

>>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>>> the rest of the world.
>>> 
>>
>>
>>Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE?    and then maybe the
>>mozilla browsers and then opera?
> 
> Which version of IE?  Some web developers complain that there
> is a much larger difference between IE and IE than, say, between
> Mozilla and Opera, or even between Mozilla and IE.
> 
> Only testing with the latest 6 versions of IE may turn out to be a
> big mistake, as you may be leaving out more than half the clients
> surfing the web.
> 
> Gordon L. Burditt

It's amazing that people don't upgrade their browsers to the current
browsers. I feel like they don't even belong on the Web. But, of course,
thats another ideological thought -- they get in the way. So that's not
practical. 

It must be hard to test in multiple IEs because Windows only lets you have
one of them at a time, right?
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 5:46:34 PM
Ian.H wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 06:23:46 +0000, Mudge wrote:
> 
>>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE..
>>> but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced
>>> upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>> 
>>> IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.
> 
>> 
>> I don't give a shit about standards.
> 
> 
> Enough said... sadly, but you continue living in your little redmond
> bubble while the rest of us get on with the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Ian

I'm sorry, I'm not from this planet. What is redmond?  I actually really
want to know.

Mudge 

0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 5:47:50 PM
Matthew Crouch wrote:

>>> 
>>>   Ian
>> 
>> I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority
>> of the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not
>> the standards.
>> 
>> Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because
>> they bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.
> 
> Also looking long term, the more people there are who "don't give a shit
> about standards", the longer the long term will be.
> 
> Coding to the quirks of a software product rewards the creator of that
> product for making it difficult to get our work done. Refusing to do so
> penalizes him or her.

That is a good point.
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 5:51:07 PM
Mudge wrote:

> I don't give a shit about standards.

Then ignore them. All of them. Ignore the real standards like RFC 2616.
Don't bother sending content-type headers, hell, don't send any headers
at all. Use urls in whatever form you like. How about
http-mudge-is-cool://\*/get my great document [now].`<>&nbsp;<>

Be independent, who needs those standards nerds at W3C? Or CERN for that
matter. Or ISO. Friggin losers ruin creativity. Do your own thing, and
see how many people can see your site then!

-- 
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
0
usenet313 (46)
8/8/2004 5:54:00 PM
Leythos wrote:

> if you only code to the standards you can miss a large number of
> custom features that a browser provides that other browsers don't
> provide.

Good web site design means adding features for those that can use them,
while not degrading the page for those who cannot.

I'd like to add that much of the IE only coding -- and that effectively
means IE/Win, at the expense of even IE/Mac -- often involves a
construct that could be done just as easily, and with support for
Mozilla, Opera, Safari, etc. Stranger still are examples where IE/Win
only tests make things more complicated then they need to be. More on
that here:

http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/08/11/documentAll

-- 
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
0
usenet313 (46)
8/8/2004 6:05:24 PM
Brian wrote:

> Mudge wrote:
> 
>> I don't give a shit about standards.
> 
> Then ignore them. All of them. Ignore the real standards like RFC 2616.
> Don't bother sending content-type headers, hell, don't send any headers
> at all. Use urls in whatever form you like. How about
> http-mudge-is-cool://\*/get my great document [now].`<>&nbsp;<>

HaHaHaHa, I love it! 



0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:07:14 PM
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Help,
>
>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.


You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll.  Good job!
-- 
gburnore@databasix dot com          
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore                       |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
                                      |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
DataBasix                             |  �۳�ݳ޳�ݳ��ۺݳ޳�ݳݳ޳�ݳ��۳
                                      |  �۳ 3 4 1 4 2  ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 �۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division |     Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
      Want one?  GET one!   http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================
0
gburnore (668)
8/8/2004 6:10:34 PM
Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Help,
>>
>>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
>>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
> 
> 
> You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll.  Good job!

Well, it's not a complete troll. I'm actually really interested in this data
and want this data, but I'm having fun too.
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:13:57 PM
Mudge wrote:

> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Help,
>>>
>>>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>>>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell
>>>do
>>>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer?  Crapo.
>> 
>> 
>> You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll.  Good job!
> 
> Well, it's not a complete troll. I'm actually really interested in this
> data and want this data, but I'm having fun too.

But thanks.
0
mark1822 (191)
8/8/2004 6:17:20 PM
In article <cf5q2i$efd$16@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, 
gburnore@databasix.com says...
> You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll.  Good job!

Actually it's more than just a troll, it's a discussion where some 
people say only code to the standards and only test against the 
standards and where people that have been paid to code for large 
corporations or government organizations recognize that you can code to 
several presentation platforms in the same application - it may provide 
some of the "standards" only people with insight into ways to provide a 
richer experience for their target audience.

And while we're on it - what standard? There seems to be a standard for 
Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, IE, etc... Some of them provide different 
results based on the OS of the user... While it's very nice that a 
"standard" was developed, it seems that even the designers of the 
browsers can't make their products follow the standard all the time.

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/8/2004 9:09:12 PM
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:09:12 +0000, Leythos wrote:


[ snip ]


> And while we're on it - what standard? There seems to be a standard for 
> Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, IE, etc... Some of them provide different 
> results based on the OS of the user... While it's very nice that a 
> "standard" was developed, it seems that even the designers of the 
> browsers can't make their products follow the standard all the time.


Not browser standards, the likes of W3C... I thought we had already
established that while some browsers follow the standards more closely
than others, crap like IE just does what it wants, when it wants and to
hell with everything else (as per the rest of their virus).

Opera has _major_ CSS issues, Moz has some pretty annoying issues too.

I develop mainly using Moz / Firefox.. but my code validates to XHTML1.1
standards and CSS2 standards. This gives me a great base to work on to fix
some of the annoyances with specific browsers. Anyone coding for a
specific _browser_ is no more and no less than an idiot, and most
certainly not a Web designer.



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/8/2004 9:35:53 PM
In article <pan.2004.08.08.21.35.04.78000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>, 
ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
> I develop mainly using Moz / Firefox.. but my code validates to XHTML1.1
> standards and CSS2 standards. This gives me a great base to work on to fix
> some of the annoyances with specific browsers. Anyone coding for a
> specific _browser_ is no more and no less than an idiot, and most
> certainly not a Web designer.

That's good it your target market supports it, but some situations merit 
the use of IE as the supported browser. There is more to the web 
interface world than the public internet. While you may think that 
coding to a specific base may be idiotic or make the coder not a 
designer, but it's often harder to design a site that makes rich use of 
the major browser interfaces based on their strengths - meaning that if 
you know how to add code that can determine the browser and provide the 
richest controls based on the browser type, you are doing more than just 
coding to a generic standard.

When it comes to simple web sites it's easiest to just code to the 
standard and then test on the common platforms to ensure that your app 
presents the common platforms with a usable experience.


-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/9/2004 12:25:09 AM
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:25:09 +0000, Leythos wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.08.08.21.35.04.78000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>, 
> ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
>> I develop mainly using Moz / Firefox.. but my code validates to XHTML1.1
>> standards and CSS2 standards. This gives me a great base to work on to fix
>> some of the annoyances with specific browsers. Anyone coding for a
>> specific _browser_ is no more and no less than an idiot, and most
>> certainly not a Web designer.
> 
> That's good it your target market supports it, but some situations merit 
> the use of IE as the supported browser.


I do make sure that the site is 99.9% identical in IE as it is in
Firefox.. thus surely, I cover IE as a "supported browser". I also test
with other browsers to make sure the same, down to Lynx to make sure the
CSS-P breaks down nicely when CSS isn't available in the client (for lynx
users, or for the likes of Web spiders).


> There is more to the web 
> interface world than the public internet.


Indeed, I never thought otherwise.


> While you may think that 
> coding to a specific base may be idiotic or make the coder not a 
> designer, but it's often harder to design a site that makes rich use of 
> the major browser interfaces based on their strengths


And just for arguments sake, company XYZ after having to many issues with
IE's lace-condom style security or general "quirks" decide to give another
browser a go and like it.. if you want to sit and recode their entire
intranet, go for your life! Me? I'd like to cover that possibility from
the word go. "Browser specific features" is bullshit.. IE _really_ isn't
that good ;)


> - meaning that if 
> you know how to add code that can determine the browser


But you can't, whether you're the best coder on the planet, this is out of
your control. As I posted earlier:


   $ wget --user-agent=MyBullshitAgent-v0.0.0.0.0.0.1 your-site.com


You can tell me that I'm using wget here with your code.. right? Of course
you can.. you're a good enough coder ;)


> and provide the 
> richest controls based on the browser type, you are doing more than just 
> coding to a generic standard.


Oh great! so now I clutter my sites with bullshit active-x.. nice.. NOT!
Just because some companies wouldn't know what security was if it bit off
their left nut, doesn't mean I'm going to help by coding specifically for
a waste of time app.


> When it comes to simple web sites it's easiest to just code to the 
> standard and then test on the common platforms to ensure that your app 
> presents the common platforms with a usable experience.


Who said anything about simple sites? I do this with _ALL_ sites, be them
a 3 page personal site or a 200,000 line CMS. Look outside of the box..
there's a lot going on that you're missing =)



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/9/2004 1:14:54 AM
In article <pan.2004.08.09.01.13.54.547000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>, 
ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
> And just for arguments sake, company XYZ after having to many issues with
> IE's lace-condom style security or general "quirks" decide to give another
> browser a go and like it.. if you want to sit and recode their entire
> intranet, go for your life! Me? I'd like to cover that possibility from
> the word go. "Browser specific features" is bullshit.. IE _really_ isn't
> that good ;)

I'm not saying that I agree with a IE only site, I'm saying that I know 
companies that wanted it coded that way, even government orgs that 
wanted it coded that way.

I know this is a PHP group, but there are platforms other than PHP that 
can, for the most part, determine the browser type, and you can code for 
it.

Don't get me wrong, I, myself, don't code for one browser when I write 
apps, but I've had customers say they only want IE compatibility, and 
some of them were large companies. Sometimes you can't sway them, 
sometimes you can. It's not that you need to only code to the standard, 
it's that you should unless directed to by the customer.


-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/9/2004 2:05:13 AM
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 02:05:13 +0000, Leythos wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.08.09.01.13.54.547000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>, 
> ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
>> And just for arguments sake, company XYZ after having to many issues with
>> IE's lace-condom style security or general "quirks" decide to give another
>> browser a go and like it.. if you want to sit and recode their entire
>> intranet, go for your life! Me? I'd like to cover that possibility from
>> the word go. "Browser specific features" is bullshit.. IE _really_ isn't
>> that good ;)
> 
> I'm not saying that I agree with a IE only site, I'm saying that I know 
> companies that wanted it coded that way, even government orgs that 
> wanted it coded that way.


Have you not seen some of these sites? _Many_ of the .gov sites and
"official" sites (IIRC, the UK railways info site got attacked bigtime for
it's lack of accessability for example) are coded by complete amateurs
that know no better than m$ software.


> I know this is a PHP group, but there are platforms other than PHP that 
> can, for the most part, determine the browser type, and you can code for 
> it.


And there's your problem right there, "for the most part". My sites work
in "all" browsers as-is.. no need to determine browser type, which just
like an HTTP_REFERRER for example, cannot be reliably used for anything..
wasn't the wget example enough to show that you _cannot_ reliably detect a
remote browser? Wget is obviously not the only tool available where you
can define a user-agent string.


> Don't get me wrong, I, myself, don't code for one browser when I write 
> apps, but I've had customers say they only want IE compatibility, and 
> some of them were large companies. Sometimes you can't sway them, 
> sometimes you can. It's not that you need to only code to the standard, 
> it's that you should unless directed to by the customer.


I rest my case, those customers are pure idiots. From your statements,
you're not part of this category as you recognise standards.. but the way
I see it, if I (or anyone else) can code a site that renders the same in
IE as it does in Moz, Opera or "anything else", I fail to see how that'd
be a bad thing(tm) or why a company would complain. The other joke to this
is of course, they'd probably never appear in a higher page than about
500,000 in a search engine rank unless they were unique in some way (which
is very highly doubtful). This again outlines just how clueless and
clue-proof some (most?) companies are and the results normally of
marketing dept. driven companies.. where they have no idea of the "real
world".

I'll _never_ be convinced to write a site specifically for a browser.. so
far, once explained to, I've not had a client tell me that my ideas of
how to adjust the site to be more beneficial and attract (or be more
usable) to a wider audience should not be done.

It's a really sad state of affairs when people seem to think the
be-all-and-end-all of IT is m$ driven =(



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/9/2004 2:37:10 AM
"Ian.H" <ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.09.02.36.07.422000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net...
> I rest my case, those customers are pure idiots. From your statements,
> you're not part of this category as you recognise standards.. but the way
> I see it, if I (or anyone else) can code a site that renders the same in
> IE as it does in Moz, Opera or "anything else", I fail to see how that'd
> be a bad thing(tm) or why a company would complain. The other joke to this
> is of course, they'd probably never appear in a higher page than about
> 500,000 in a search engine rank unless they were unique in some way (which
> is very highly doubtful). This again outlines just how clueless and
> clue-proof some (most?) companies are and the results normally of
> marketing dept. driven companies.. where they have no idea of the "real
> world".

It's a fairly standard practice for web-design firms to charge extra for
each browser/OS combination supported, since it does add to the cost of
development, primairly from additional testing required. If the client is
unwilling to pay, then the site is guaranteed to work on IE/Windows only.
And of course, from a business standpoint, it makes no sense that the site
automatically works on every other browser too.



-- 
Obey the Clown - http://www.conradish.net/bobo/


0
chernyshevsky (2297)
8/9/2004 5:06:28 AM
Ian.H wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 02:05:13 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> 
>> In article <pan.2004.08.09.01.13.54.547000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>,
>> ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
>>> And just for arguments sake, company XYZ after having to many issues
>>> with IE's lace-condom style security or general "quirks" decide to give
>>> another browser a go and like it.. if you want to sit and recode their
>>> entire intranet, go for your life! Me? I'd like to cover that
>>> possibility from the word go. "Browser specific features" is bullshit..
>>> IE _really_ isn't that good ;)
>> 
>> I'm not saying that I agree with a IE only site, I'm saying that I know
>> companies that wanted it coded that way, even government orgs that
>> wanted it coded that way.
> 
> 
> Have you not seen some of these sites? _Many_ of the .gov sites and
> "official" sites (IIRC, the UK railways info site got attacked bigtime for
> it's lack of accessability for example) are coded by complete amateurs
> that know no better than m$ software.
> 
> 
>> I know this is a PHP group, but there are platforms other than PHP that
>> can, for the most part, determine the browser type, and you can code for
>> it.
> 
> 
> And there's your problem right there, "for the most part". My sites work
> in "all" browsers as-is.. no need to determine browser type, which just
> like an HTTP_REFERRER for example, cannot be reliably used for anything..
> wasn't the wget example enough to show that you _cannot_ reliably detect a
> remote browser? Wget is obviously not the only tool available where you
> can define a user-agent string.
> 
> 
>> Don't get me wrong, I, myself, don't code for one browser when I write
>> apps, but I've had customers say they only want IE compatibility, and
>> some of them were large companies. Sometimes you can't sway them,
>> sometimes you can. It's not that you need to only code to the standard,
>> it's that you should unless directed to by the customer.
> 
> 
> I rest my case, those customers are pure idiots. From your statements,
> you're not part of this category as you recognise standards.. but the way
> I see it, if I (or anyone else) can code a site that renders the same in
> IE as it does in Moz, Opera or "anything else", I fail to see how that'd
> be a bad thing(tm) or why a company would complain. The other joke to this
> is of course, they'd probably never appear in a higher page than about
> 500,000 in a search engine rank unless they were unique in some way (which
> is very highly doubtful). This again outlines just how clueless and
> clue-proof some (most?) companies are and the results normally of
> marketing dept. driven companies.. where they have no idea of the "real
> world".
> 
> I'll _never_ be convinced to write a site specifically for a browser.. so
> far, once explained to, I've not had a client tell me that my ideas of
> how to adjust the site to be more beneficial and attract (or be more
> usable) to a wider audience should not be done.
> 
> It's a really sad state of affairs when people seem to think the
> be-all-and-end-all of IT is m$ driven =(
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Ian

Most people in this world -- at least from the U.S. that I can tell -- don't
really know much about computers or the Internet. The normal is not to
know. 

0
mark1822 (191)
8/9/2004 8:23:01 AM
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 01:06:28 -0400, Chung Leong wrote:

> "Ian.H" <ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.09.02.36.07.422000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net...
>> I rest my case, those customers are pure idiots. From your statements,
>> you're not part of this category as you recognise standards.. but the way
>> I see it, if I (or anyone else) can code a site that renders the same in
>> IE as it does in Moz, Opera or "anything else", I fail to see how that'd
>> be a bad thing(tm) or why a company would complain. The other joke to this
>> is of course, they'd probably never appear in a higher page than about
>> 500,000 in a search engine rank unless they were unique in some way (which
>> is very highly doubtful). This again outlines just how clueless and
>> clue-proof some (most?) companies are and the results normally of
>> marketing dept. driven companies.. where they have no idea of the "real
>> world".
> 
> It's a fairly standard practice for web-design firms to charge extra for
> each browser/OS combination supported, since it does add to the cost of
> development, primairly from additional testing required. If the client is
> unwilling to pay, then the site is guaranteed to work on IE/Windows only.
> And of course, from a business standpoint, it makes no sense that the site
> automatically works on every other browser too.


Sorry Chung, I've just spat my coffee all over my keyboard.. you _are_
pulling my leg right?

All I can say then is I'm glad I do my coding as a freelancer.. I will
_never_ support a windoze only situation for Web development, _NEVER!_ and
I've never had a complaint about my work and I don't charge per browser.

This is a prime example of where the world has just become all about
greed.. and brainwashed fools.



Regards,

  Ian

-- 
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

0
ian770 (487)
8/9/2004 10:57:08 AM
In article <pan.2004.08.09.10.55.43.375000@bubbleboy.digiserv.net>, 
ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
> Sorry Chung, I've just spat my coffee all over my keyboard.. you _are_
> pulling my leg right?
> 
> All I can say then is I'm glad I do my coding as a freelancer.. I will
> _never_ support a windoze only situation for Web development, _NEVER!_ and
> I've never had a complaint about my work and I don't charge per browser.
> 
> This is a prime example of where the world has just become all about
> greed.. and brainwashed fools.

Nope, he's right - the more browsers you want the app customized for the 
more hours it takes, so the more it costs.

As for free-lancing, wait till you start competing with the Off-Shore 
resources that only cost the clients $9/hr.

I once, for a non-profit, bid $650 (USD), for a 23 page static site, all 
HTML, nothing fancy, and they found a kid that would do it in MS Word 
for $300! Site looks like shit too. Now they have decided to come back 
and ask us to fix it or rebuild it - spent 4 hours with them going over 
designs and the feel of the new site, and they turned around and took 
our ideas to a friend of a board member who did it for less than half 
our bid... It's just not worth going after jobs that are under $15K base 
cost, to many kids to compete with, and above $90K too many off-shore 
companies to compete with.

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/9/2004 5:44:01 PM
"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_FtRc.250341$JR4.237756@attbi_s54...
> It must be hard to test in multiple IEs because Windows only lets you have
> one of them at a time, right?

Wrong.

http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/000094.php

Steve
-- 
Steven C. Gallafent - The Computer Guy, Inc.
steve@compguy.com - http://www.compguy.com/


0
steve7421 (18)
8/9/2004 9:02:21 PM
Mudge wrote:
> 
> I don't give a shit about standards.

Then I hope and pray no one is stupid enough to hire you.

bblackmoor
2004-08-11
0
8/12/2004 3:28:35 AM
Mudge wrote:
> 
> Standards are really great, but they are only an idea. 
 > So when it comes to building a Web site, fuck em.

This kind of staggering incompetence does at least as much damage to the 
web and our industry as Microsoft does. The great strength of the web is 
also its greatest weakness: any idiot with a dial-up account can claim 
to be a web developer.

Ah, well. At least it's easy for us to spot them when we do interviews.

Hint: I work at one of the largest employee owned science and technology 
companies in the WORLD. We pay better than most of the companies in our 
sector. If you want to be employed, and paid well, then learn what the 
standards are, and adhere to them. Period.

bblackmoor
2004-08-11
0
8/12/2004 3:35:48 AM
Leythos wrote:
> 
> It's fairly easy to detect which browser is being used 
 > and add the code that provides the format based on the
 > differences

Good lord: is it still 1998 where you live?

bblackmoor
2004-08-11
0
8/12/2004 3:37:52 AM
"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_FtRc.250341$JR4.237756@attbi_s54...
> It's amazing that people don't upgrade their browsers to the current
> browsers. I feel like they don't even belong on the Web. But, of course,
> thats another ideological thought -- they get in the way. So that's not
> practical.

Microsoft does a pretty good job pushing people to upgrade to the latest
version. Big Brother is great when conformity is what you want...

> It must be hard to test in multiple IEs because Windows only lets you have
> one of them at a time, right?

That's what VMWare is for :-)

To reliably test the various versions of IE, you really need separate
installations of Windows, as the browser is integrated pretty deeply into
the OS.


0
chernyshevsky (2297)
8/12/2004 3:45:46 AM
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:35:48 -0400, Brandon Blackmoor
<bblackmoor@blackgate.net> wrote:

>Hint: I work at one of the largest employee owned science and technology 
>companies in the WORLD. We pay better than most of the companies in our 
>sector. If you want to be employed, and paid well, then learn what the 
>standards are, and adhere to them. Period.

All of which is fine, until the standards are shown to be distinctly
sub-standard.  Standards committees have a habit of moving very very
slowly when it comes to updating and/or revising their standards to
meet new demands.  

Having said that, developing for one browser when you have the
possibility to develop for several is cutting off your nose to spite
your face.  


0
no.spam (372)
8/12/2004 9:56:20 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Branch can't get to internet, can't ping anything but ethernet at main site.
Ok, What am i missing? I've got a new MPLS connection up and running. I can ping the branch site from my main site just fine. I can not ping ANYTHING past the main site ethernet port via the branch router. Can someone please help me out!!! Heres so configs Main: interface FastEthernet0/0 description $ETH-SW-LAUNCH$$INTF-INFO-FE 0/0$$ETH-LAN$ ip address 192.168.1.251 255.255.255.0 duplex auto speed auto ! interface Serial0/0/0 ip address 63.239.127.226 255.255.255.252 ip access-group 189 in service-module t1 timeslots 1-12 ! router rip version 2 passive-interface FastEthernet0/0 passive-interface Serial0/0/0 network 63.0.0.0 network 192.168.1.0 neighbor 192.168.2.0 no auto-summary ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.250 ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 63.239.127.225 ! Branch router: ! interface Serial0 ip address 72.165.109.6 255.255.255.252 ip helper-address 192.168.1.205 no ip directed-broadcast fair-queue 64 256 0 service-module t1 timeslots 1-6 no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet0 description connected to LAN ip address 192.168.2.254 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast full-duplex no cdp enable ! router rip version 2 network 192.168.2.0 neighbor 192.168.1.0 ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0 no ip http server ! no cdp run td ha escrito: > Ok, > What am i missing? > I've got a new MPLS connection up and running. > I can ping the branch site from my main site just fine. > I can no...

Can't use Linux from internet cafe
So I brought my laptop running Debian Sarge into an internet cafe that lets you hook up to an ethernet cable, and I couldn't access the internet from it. The DHCP messages on startup looked perfectly normal. One strange thing -- when I tried ping, I got a bunch of dropped UDP packets from my iptables filtering, but when I liberalized the filter to let them through, I still couldn't get any connectivity. The connection works fine from Windows XP (same hardware). I don't even know where to look. The thing that concerns me is that I've just moved to Toronto and haven't fo...

why can't i see picture in microsoft internet explorer?
recently i can't seem to be able to see pictures and images in microsoft internet explorer (version 6). I had no problems before and, as far as i know , I haven't made any changes recently. can anyone help cheers As I don't see the point of someone pointing you towards MS Help and Support perhaps we can help you a little more than just a restore. What kind of image are you trying to view? Any kind? Any website? What if you try and open a saved image (from your hard drive) and view it in IE? Let me know these details and I'll see if I can help you. sh4d03 -- If you require more assistance or if my suggestion works please E-mail me at sh4d03 [at] TPG [dot] com [dot] au - please make ensure you insert the word "Newsgroup" before anything else in the subject line. Thanks, Sh4d03 If you go to any website, and your not getting the pictures, try right clicking where the picture would be, and then select "Show Picture" from the menu. If the picture is displayed, sounds like internet explorer has been told not to display pictures. Go to the control panel, and click on internet options. To go the last tab at the top labled "Advanced". Scroll down to the multimedia section, and make sure the "Show Pictures" and "Show image download placeholders" box has a tick in it. Click OK, and all should be well. Sam Bhatt, OneTel UK "sh4d03" <sh4d03@TPG.com.au> wrote in message news:40d17929@dnews.tpgi.co...

Re: why can't i see picture in microsoft internet explorer?
Try run Msconfig and choose System Restore. If not, click start menu and select help and support. From here choose your problem you wanted to solve. Joseph -----Original Message----- From: john kennedy [mailto:galdcourse2@yahoo.es]=20 Posted At: Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:01 AM Posted To: misc Conversation: why can't i see picture in microsoft internet explorer? Subject: why can't i see picture in microsoft internet explorer? recently i can't seem to be able to see pictures and images in microsoft internet explorer (version 6). I had no problems before and, as far as i know , I haven't made any changes recently. can anyone help cheers ...

Which codes can WebBrowser use of the file ' system32 ' so that my project remain compatible with all the ' Internet Explorer'?
Hello, I create a vb4 project which can also naviger on Internet via the WebBrowser control which I put on my form. My question is: if this program is installed on a station having already Internet Explorer in it then will it cause an error if version Internet Explorer is the same one as WebBrowser which is in my project? Is it this control which Internet Explorer uses? If that can cause errors of version then, instead, can I install this WebBrowser1 in the file of the project so that my project does not use the one which the user has in his file ' system32 ' but my project uses only the one is in its own file (the one in the project)? And if that could not be, then what would be the code so that my project uses WebBrower which is already in the file ' system32 ' of the user? Perhaps thus, I will be able to use the Load order to charge WebBrowser of the file ' system' (if it is well as that which Ca functions). In this case I would have also the problem if the user does not have this WebBrowser Internet Explorer but he has Netscape!#?!#! a+ Raymond H. divers_rh@hotmail.com The Web Browser control is actually just a reference to SHDOCVW.DLL, which is the IE breowser window. SHDOCVW.DLL _should not_ be shipped. There is no "WB.OCX" type of file. Using the WB control you'll get an IE window of whatever version is installed on the target machine. For that reason the WB requires that at least IE4 be installed. -- -- Ra...

Can't cd , can't use wildcard
Hi , I am running Windows 2000 service pack 4.Whenever I try to "cd" into some of the directories(which exist), I get an "Invalid directory". I can use to get into few of the directories(using cd) but for other it just says "Invalid directory". Moreover, I can't use any wildcard characters..(*, ? etc) at all.. Any idea what is wrong? Thanks Arun On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:13:52 GMT, Arun Goel <arun.goel@sbcglobal.net> wrote the following to comp.os.msdos.misc: > Hi , > > I am running Windows 2000 service pack 4.Whene...

Can't Use Linux Anymore, It Doesn't Jerk Around Enough Like Spastic Monkeys
Why the heck doesn't this Linux installation flash on an off and jerk all over the screen, thus properly attracting my attention? I like a little interreaction from my programs. Plus it's running on only 256K Ram. What's with that? More (waaaaaaaay more) is better, Right? I'm feeling resource starved here. Those windows bozos are having all the ram MASS fun. This sucks. On 2007-08-18, flyer <flyer@there.net> wrote: > > Why the heck doesn't this Linux installation flash on an off and jerk all over the screen, thus properly attracting my attention? > &g...

using NAT Router, can't block gmail, can I use Linux box instaed of NAT Router?
using NAT Router for small office, can't block gmail, can I use Linux box to block gmail (all web based e-mails) instead of NAT Router to do block, will it support?. Thanks santa19992000@yahoo.com wrote: > using NAT Router for small office, can't block gmail, can I use Linux > box to block gmail (all web based e-mails) instead of NAT Router to do > block, will it support?. Thanks If you need to allow other Web traffic, you're OOL. The webmails are just web pages and they cannot easily be distinguished from valid web traffic by the firewall. -- Tauno Voipio tauno voipio (at) iki fi Tauno Voipio wrote: > santa19992000@yahoo.com wrote: > >> using NAT Router for small office, can't block gmail, can I use Linux >> box to block gmail (all web based e-mails) instead of NAT Router to do >> block, will it support?. Thanks > > > > If you need to allow other Web traffic, you're OOL. The > webmails are just web pages and they cannot easily be > distinguished from valid web traffic by the firewall. > I don't think the original poster was at all clear in describing what he/she wants to do. You could indeed block access to a particular web site, knowing its IP address. But when I read the posting, I thought the concern was with incoming mail from such web based e-mails (and there are many others besides gmail). So I think we need clarification. Or perhaps the OP is clueless (as evidenced by the g...

SQL Server Management Studio can't 'see' the 2005 engine?? But can see 2000 ?!?
Hello, I had SQL2000 server running fine on the windows 2003 box. I then installed SQL 2005 Express. They both worked together fine. I then uninstalled SQL 2005 Express and installed SQL 2005 Server. But when I open SQL Server Management Studio, I can only connect to the SQL 2000 engine. In the Object explorer, it says v8.0.2039 (which I think is SQL 2000 Server, because I can see the existing SQL 2000 databases). How can I get SQL Server Management Studio to 'see' the SQL 2005 database engine so I can create tables? I *think* its running because there is the 'sqlservr.exe' process running, and during installation there is no issues. When I open SQL Server Management Studio, I choose 'Database Engine', then my local Servername with Windows Authentication. How do I connect to the SQL 2005 instance? Thanks, Jack. Jack (jack@nospam.com.uk) writes: > I had SQL2000 server running fine on the windows 2003 box. I then > installed SQL 2005 Express. They both worked together fine. I then > uninstalled SQL 2005 Express and installed SQL 2005 Server. But when I > open SQL Server Management Studio, I can only connect to the SQL 2000 > engine. In the Object explorer, it says v8.0.2039 (which I think is SQL > 2000 Server, because I can see the existing SQL 2000 databases). > > How can I get SQL Server Management Studio to 'see' the SQL 2005 > database engine so I can create tables? I *think* its running because &...

I prepared document with Linux and put it on web site, can't open with Windiws word?
if I prepare a doc with Linux and uploaded to web, couldn't able to open with Win word with win2K machine, do I need any plug-in here, I couldn't understand the problem. santa19992000@yahoo.com wrote: > if I prepare a doc with Linux and uploaded to web, couldn't able to > open with Win word with win2K machine, do I need any plug-in here, I > couldn't understand the problem. 1) What linux program did you use to create it? 2) What format did you save it in? 3) Are you sure it wasn't corrupted, either on your machine or in transit to the web? 4) Did you try ope...

Can't relogin to site
Rather than me explain the problem, read this exchange of emails between my web host and myself, then tell me what I can tell them! I had a problem with their admin site all day, and after me saying "can't log in", and them saying "nothing wrong", I sent the following: ------------------------------------------------------ > Found it! Tried it with 3 browsers now (IE, Opera, Firefox), and the > result is that I've just discovered a problem with your site... > It sets a cookie, PHPSESSID, with a value. If I get timed out or log out, > I cannot log in again. > If I delete that cookie, I can. > Try this: login, log out, try and log in again - doesn't work. > Close window, try and log in again. - works. > In other words, no matter what browser, you cannot log into the site again > once logged out. ------------------------------------------------------ To which they replied ------------------------------------------------------ > Hi > We already know that the Members Area works in this way. > > As you say, we are using a PHP Session ID and this is the way they work. > > Nobody else has reported that this is a problem for them. > > I guess in due course, it may be something that PHP themselves might want > to > look into. ------------------------------------------------------ Now if that isn't passing the buck, I don't know what is!! Jonathan wrote: > Rather than me exp...

Can't Use OnCurrent Event / Can't Find Macro
I have run into a sudden problem and thought I'd see if anyone else has ran into this. Out of nowhere (sort-of) I am not able to access the OnCurrent event on a subform. I, of course, can write code for the event, but [Event Procedure] under OnCurrent does not show up on the properties of the subform, and the event does not fire. When this problem happened, it seems to have also generated an error while changing records in the Main Form. The error is "...can't find the macro ".". At least I think their related...both started at the same time. I have never used a macro in my life. When I say "sort-of" above, the only thing I can think that I may have done is this: When quickly "ALT-TAB'ing" between my form and the VB editor, I *think* I accidently deleted the words [Event Procedure] out of the said OnCurrent event. Although, I'm quite sure I have done this in the past, and was able to just re-initiate the event, and move on. Now, when I try to re-initiate the event (by clicking the "..." symbol next to the event) it brings up the EXPRESSION BUILDER! Not the Choose Builder request like it should. I have tried everything short of re-creating the form completely (compact/repair, export form - c/r - import form, ext...) Anybody ever see this? You should be able to just type in [Event Procedure] in the event slot and it will begin working. Rational Repairs wrote: >I have run into a sudden problem and thought ...

I can share internet but computers can't see each other
I have two XP machines, a laptop and desktop, I can share an internet connection using a D-Link wireless broadband router, but when I try to share a printer or files, the PC's cannot see each other. I've enabled sharing on everything on both machines. I ran the IP address from the start menu (\\192.168.0.101) and it does not good. My wife needs to print her work out and she's getting frustrated at me and my lack of networking skills. Help! Make sure both PCs are on the same workgroup, but have different names. Right click on "My Computer" and select &quo...

Can't see print preview and can't print under Lexmark Z32!
Hi, I face a problem that my customer using lexmark z32 USB prot printer, clarion 5.5 can't generate print preview and can't to printer also. Does anybody face this problem before? How to solve this problem? TQ. Best Regards, Nelson ...

Windows "routing" server separating two subnets
Gurus, I have a small lab with a bunch of servers setup on two different subnets, 192.168.1.1 is the gateway for one and 172.16.1.1 is the gateway for the other. Installed on my Router (Windows Server with three NICs - I know, please don't comment on this, it's is for learning purposes, not production), the third NIC is the gateway to the Internet. What works: The Router server can reach the Internet as well as the computers in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet (the first subnet built). What's broken: The computers on the 172.16.1.0/16 subnet cannot get to the Inter...

Can't see all of the queries when merging to MS Word and can't get to reports
I'm working with a database developed by an untrained person over several years - and on a network that has recently been upgraded with a new server installed and MS office upgraded from 2K (I think - it might have been XP) to 2003. The database is impressive, both in what it does and the obtuse and inconsistent ways it works. There are several hundred queries, for example, with no indication of where they are used or if they are in fact necessary at all... The database is for the local Hospice service, and their entire operation is based on it - from patient records to donations. The database was developed in Access 2K and has not been converted, so it's being opened as an Access 2000 database in Access 2003. I tried converting to 2003, and didn't see any change in the bothersome behavior. There are several letters in MS Word that use the database as the source data for mail merges. Until the conversion, everything worked fine, but with the conversion, it became necessary to specify new locations for the source data for the merges. In MS Word 2003, when I try to open a new datasource, I can specify the MS Access database, but the format of the dialog box is significantly different than I am used to. I am presented with a list of "Views" and tables, with the Views apparently corresponding to the queries in the database. The difficulty is that, unlike in Access 2K, I don't seem to be seeing any query that contain parameters - at least I thin...

Does IRS hate Linux? (Can't use forms in acroread in Linux)
(Note running Mepis 3.3, Firefox 1.0.1, Acroread 5.0.10 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120a.pdf Maybe its just my system, but when I go to the above official IRS PDF form for corporate taxes (1120), the form opens but I get errors saying it requires 5.1 or later than 5.0.5 of Acrobat. There is no 5.1 version for Linux but there is 5.0.10. I can fill it in but can ONLY print it a page at a time (fortunately its only 2 pages!). What's up with that? (But at least it prints!) I cannot save it with changes, because the IRS says... For users of Adobe Reader: beginning October 25, 2004 ...

Can't load Citibank's secure web-sites
Hi, I have three computer at home - all connected to the same Linksys router/firewall. One have wire connection and two - wireless. One wireless computer does not seem to be able to connect to any of CitiBank sites, while others have no problem. Sites of other banks (for example, Chase Online) work normally. This defiant computer is Win'98SE system with the latest version of Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator that do support 128-bit encryption. It also has Norton Internet Security 2003, however, the problem persists even when NIS is disabled. I did not find any places where Citi domains are blocked. My wireless network currently do not have WEP enabled. Any advice on further troubleshooting? TIA, Eugene ------------------- PS. Was originally posted on comp.security.firewalls under with a different subject, but got no responses. I've found LinkSys support to be excellent. http://www.linksys.com/contact/contact.asp Please let us know how it goes. I'm curious about your problem. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "Eugene F." <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1111330358.637869.143350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Hi, > > I have three computer at home - all connected to the same Linksys > router/firewall. One have wire connection and two - wireless. > > One wireless computer does not seem to be able to co...

Win 98SE can't see LAN, but can access Internet
I have a strange problem. I have a local network behind a Linksys router. My Sony Viao laptop w/ Win 98SE, cannot .. ping the router .. access http://192... of my Linsys router .. see any other PC in the LAN (using domain names or IP addresses) .. map any other computers n/w drive (using domain names or IP addresses) It can, however, access the Internet normally via domain names and IP addresses The router (DHCP ON) does allocate IP address to this laptop. All other computers work fine in the LAN. They can access this laptop and its drives too. I have tried disabling firewa...

OT, Linux: bash can't see a file that's there, really!
Sorry for the OT post, but I figure I'll get a quicker, more useful response here. Brand new computer, Xubuntu 14.04 instead of Lubuntu 12.04 I just copied over my Codesourcery directory to /usr/share/arm-none-eabi (where it was on the old machine, and where everything worked fine). Bash insists it's not there, even though I can see it in a directory: Here's ls: $ ls -l /usr/share/arm-none-eabi/bin/*gcc -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 270608 Aug 6 2014 /usr/share/arm-none-eabi/bin/ arm-none-eabi-gcc Here's when I try to run it: $ /usr/share/arm-none-eabi/bin...

[News] Breaking Evil Myths: Linux Users Can't Play; Can't Run Windows Applications
Because penguins need to play too. ,----[ Quote ] | The Windows camp have a lot of great games to play and a popular | misconception is that Linux is lacking in games. That is not true. | There are literally thousands of games for Linux. In fact a lot of | them have been ported to Windows too. | | [...] | | There are both free and commercial games available. Some of the best | ones I really like are America's Army, Tremulous and Enemy Territory. `---- http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/because-penguins-need-to-play-too-14767 Run Windows Apps on Linux using 2X ApplicationServer ,----[ Quote ] | 2X ApplicationServer is a useful solution for those who still need access | to some Windows only apps, but prefer to work in Linux. `---- http://linuxappfinder.com/blog/run_windows_apps_on_linux_using_2x_applicationserver Related: LinuxGamePublishing announces X3: Reunion ,----[ Quote ] | The announcement was made during LinuxGames.coms' latest(7th) | podcast, and said to be about 80% completed. `---- http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1914 TO: Crossfire 1.5 released ,----[ Quote ] | Inspired by TacticalOps, TO: Crossfire is a game based on Epic's | awardwinning UnrealEngine and throws you into the life-and-death | world of counterterrorism. `---- http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1913 Supergamer LiveDVD - Gaming on Linux hits new levels ,----[ Quote ] | SuperGamer is a modified version...

Linux crapware: "no use to buy good motherboard if I can't use it"
"I have to turn off compiz, to be able to launch thunderbird. It's a shame that I can't have compiz. It's no use to buy good motherboard if we can't use it." #367 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1135055&highlight=freeze&page=37 Linux degrades your standards and ruins your hardware and software computing experience. On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:55:08 -0400, DFS wrote: > "I have to turn off compiz, to be able to launch thunderbird. It's a > shame that I can't have compiz. It's no use to buy good motherboard if > we can...

Linux Tablets Use Texas Instruments Chips (Which Windows{r} Can't Use)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 More Android 3.2 and Amazon tablet details emerge ,----[ Quote ] | More details have surfaced about Android 3.2, | including support for seven-inch screens and | Qualcomm processors. The release may appear on | Amazon.com's Android tablets, which are rumored | to be arriving in August bearing Texas Instruments | processors and could hasten the fall of the monochrome Kindle. | | Google and its Android tablet vendor partners face a | double-edged sword in their epic struggle against the | almighty Apple iPad. Android 2.x is both functionally | and aesthetically lacking on larger screens, especially | beyond seven inches. Meanwhile, Android 3.0 solves this | problem and introduces some cool features not found on | the iPad, but is widely criticized for being buggy and complex. `---- http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Android-32-and-Amazon-tablet/?kc=rss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4EQnUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6LvwCfZGwl8JbsaXO+gljIaWmjbQfI xBcAnie1QGvDsAn4S1Kv/Hrs5kuLTTpH =fiw4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Roy Schestowitz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > More Android 3.2 and Amazon tablet details emerge > > ,----[ Quote ] >| More details have surfaced about Android 3.2, >| including support for seven-inch screens and >| Qualcomm processors. The release may appear on >| Amazon.com's Android tablets, which are rumored ...

Windows must be Broken! It's can't be fixed! I need to use Linux!
OK I've tried to clean all the spyware on my windows computer. As you know, when I was trying to examin a strange file on my hard drive, I couldn't use command like "file" to tell me what it is. And the system doesn't have a command like find ~/ -type f -perm +1 -cmin -40 -printf '%p\t%m\n' -exec rm {} \; which would have deleted ALL the spyware files. I was forced to do something like this http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000888.html June 15, 2007 How to Clean Up a Windows Spyware Infestation I recently upgraded my dedicated racing simulation P...

Web resources about - I can't see my Web site from Internet Explorer because I use LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - comp.lang.php

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . and video game consoles ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For GNU package based on Linux kernel, see GNU Linux-libre . For ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . and video game consoles ...

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the operating system. For the kernel, see Linux kernel . For other uses, see Linux (disambiguation) . The development of ...

More developers now use OS X than Linux, says ‘most comprehensive survey ever conducted’
Stack Overflow reports that more developers now use OS X than Linux as their primary OS, and that if the trend continues, fewer than half of ...

The Linux Foundation announces free 'Intro to Cloud Infrastructure Technologies' edX course
... While these MOOCs may not carry the same panache as a university diploma, they can enable you to learn new things for free. Today, the Linux ...

Dell brings Linux to its latest XPS 13 laptop
Have you coveted the Skylake-powered version of Dell's near-borderless XPS 13 laptop, but wished it would ship with an open platform like Linux ...

Red Hat Starts Beta Test Cycle for Enterprise Linux 6.8
DAILY VIDEO: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.8 enters beta; Microsoft announces SharePoint 2016 release to manufacturing; Microsoft paves road to ...

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer no longer badmouths Linux but offers no apology for calling it a ‘cancer’ ...
... Steve Ballmer, the fiery former chief executive of Microsoft, has voiced support for the software giant’s recent move to cozy up to the Linux ...

Google's Scrapping Chrome's App Launcher on Windows, Mac and Linux
Like opening Chrome apps using Google’s dedicated launcher? Tough: As of July, it will be entirely scrapped on Windows, Mac and Linux. Read ...

Resources last updated: 3/24/2016 3:51:06 AM