so this is the place for flames?

lagremage · 05-11-2006, 12:44 PM

OK, if so, then GOOD. I just need to get a lil something off my chest. I HATE INTERNET EXPLORER. Done. Thanks.

Fozzik · 05-11-2006, 08:48 PM

STFU n00b!@!!

I'm going to have to agree with you. IE is teh sux. I just started out with the flame to confirm you were in the right place.

JAdams · 05-12-2006, 03:33 AM

Go Firefox!

Flayer · 05-12-2006, 02:26 PM

I hate how websites use stuff like Windows Media Player or WMV files to distribute their movies and such.

I don't like it when they use flash for that either, but at least you can download the player for that free of charge. I'd have to pay something like 150 bucks for the damned Internet Explorer or Windows Media player. Nu-huh.

Skarlath · 05-13-2006, 08:55 AM

I've never had any problems with IE, and I have always thought that the way many people switch to the 'better' alternative that is Firefox is a bit odd. Do people really have that many problems with IE? Is firefox really that much better?

As a bit of a Microsoft fanboy (

) I can't help but think that browser choice is based rather heavily on the general 'Microsoft-hate' that has become so popular.

Flayer - WMP is free if youre running windows. I guess that's where you must have gone wrong.

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarlath

Flayer - WMP is free if youre running windows. I guess that's where you must have gone wrong.

It went wrong when your ability to browse the web became dependant on how much money you wanted to give to Microsoft.

Razorwire · 05-13-2006, 11:58 AM

Yah but we have to assume that if you plan on playing Vanguard you will own a windows box and there for you will have "free" use of Windows Media player.

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Yah but we have to assume that if you plan on playing Vanguard you will own a windows box and there for you will have "free" use of Windows Media player.

Hah! That's what you think.

Anyway, I just think it's wrong that people who make websites that made for the general public use proprietary technology. It's not like I 'hate' Microsoft... I mean, I'm no fanboy, but I am willing to invest time in this whole Vanguard thing, even though MS was originally going to publish it, right? But I think it's wrong that pretty much anything on the internet that's meant for the general public is dependant on a certain type of OS/browser.

lagremage · 05-13-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarlath

I've never had any problems with IE, and I have always thought that the way many people switch to the 'better' alternative that is Firefox is a bit odd. Do people really have that many problems with IE? Is firefox really that much better?

It's not that I've had problems with IE, it's that I've been using Netscape and its derivatives since before IE even existed, and I can't stand and am outright disgusted with the business practices that went into making IE king of the browsers. I just don't understand why MS wanted to do that. Of course, I do, actually... The problem with MS is that they want to be the company that does everything. They want to be the standard. So, if something exists already that is basically a standard (Netscape, and now Google), they basically flip out and try to force their own products onto people, and they even go so far as to ignore actual standards that have already been set in place. If they would just put their products out there as an alternative and allow the market to decide which product is best, I would no longer complain.

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 01:18 PM

The same thing happened with media formats. There are/were perfectly useable video formats, and yet they come up with WMV, which is a slightly modified version (made proprietary, so no one else can use without paying them) of some mpeg codec.

And they continue to slightly modify it... There's WMV1 and WMV2 which are hacked... now WMV3 is also (somewhat) hacked and you can bet your ass WMV4 will be in Vista.

The internet should be accessible by all. Standards (like the actual format of a media file -- not the program you use to encode files with) need to be open and free.

Can you just imagine what would happen if we had two big Operating Systems used worldwide, and they both used entirely different standards for very basic things like HTML?

JAdams · 05-13-2006, 01:57 PM

You might be right, Skarlath. I been using Firefox for so long I really don't have any idea how IE is anymore, so I'm probably a bit biased

However, would you believe that, using Firefox and a couple of extensions, I haven't even seen a banner ad in ages? And it isn't that hard to set up. Same with popups...

Skarlath · 05-13-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flayer

Can you just imagine what would happen if we had two big Operating Systems used worldwide, and they both used entirely different standards for very basic things like HTML?

But that's why we need a company like Microsoft! One that is willing to do all that is necessary to set their own methods as 'the standard'.

Can you imagine what would happen if we had people using thousands of operating systems worldwide, and each of them had no idea how to communicate with and all used entirely different standards for very basic things like HTML?

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 02:15 PM

But if those standards are not open and free then that one company would have absolute control over things such as pricing and any innovation would be gone. The need to improve would dissappear because no one besides that one company could write software to interact with the 'HTML.'

That's generally not a good thing for consumers.

Open standards means that the software would improve continously, because there is competition between the usability and functionality of the software that is written.

Skarlath · 05-13-2006, 02:30 PM

Hehe

So you appoint a government body - a regulator - to maintain artificial competition. The company is driven to improve efficiency and prices low. You then have a single company with a single standard with the benefits of open standards that risk colossal incompatibility.

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarlath

So you appoint a government body - a regulator - to maintain artificial competition. The company is driven to improve efficiency and prices low. You then have a single company with a single standard with the benefits of open standards that risk colossal incompatibility.

That risk colossal incompatibility? How exactly? Either I don't understand what you're trying to say, or you don't believe that (big) software writers will adhere to standards, if they're more accepted and used and expected by the public like HTML.

Anyway, the point is that Microsoft "invents" things that already exists and/or then keeps those things to themselves. This should not be allowed, especially not by (what's more or less) a monopoly.

Razorwire · 05-13-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flayer

But if those standards are not open and free then that one company would have absolute control over things such as pricing and any innovation would be gone. The need to improve would dissappear because no one besides that one company could write software to interact with the 'HTML.'

That's generally not a good thing for consumers.

Open standards means that the software would improve continously, because there is competition between the usability and functionality of the software that is written.

Open standards are NOT ncessarily better than a proprietary protocol. Take TCP/IP, was not developed as an open standard, and if I remember correctly that even though it is freely availible it is still not an open standard. It has regulatory bodies that control what is allowed to be in TCP/IP and that is what runs the internet.

I am pro GNU but I know that the open source/open standard community does not put forth the best work as evidenced by the massive schizm in the Linux world.

Flayer · 05-13-2006, 06:06 PM

I never said that "open" had to mean the GNU General Public License (modifiable by everyone). It is "open" as in "free to implement" and the specifications are publicly accessible. Perhaps I should have been clearer in this, or maybe I just got the concept of "open standard" wrong.

Also, proprietary in my head means that it cannot be used (ie. implemented) without permission. Standards have to be maintained by one body, of course. It is not really viable for standards to be modified (and then distributed) by everyone, anyway.

Perhaps I have used some terms incorrectly in this thread. For that, I apologize. English is not my native tongue, and I pick up the meaning of words by how they are used, not by reading a dictionary.

To recap:
Open standards (in my book): useable (free of charge) and viewable by everyone.
Non-open standards: useable at a charge and not publicly viewable.

Falciform · 05-13-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flayer

But I think it's wrong that pretty much anything on the internet that's meant for the general public is dependant on a certain type of OS/browser.

I love it. Personally, I think all corporations should be required to merge with Exxon-Mobile to promote standardization.

Razorwire · 05-17-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flayer

I never said that "open" had to mean the GNU General Public License (modifiable by everyone). It is "open" as in "free to implement" and the specifications are publicly accessible. Perhaps I should have been clearer in this, or maybe I just got the concept of "open standard" wrong.

Also, proprietary in my head means that it cannot be used (ie. implemented) without permission. Standards have to be maintained by one body, of course. It is not really viable for standards to be modified (and then distributed) by everyone, anyway.

Perhaps I have used some terms incorrectly in this thread. For that, I apologize. English is not my native tongue, and I pick up the meaning of words by how they are used, not by reading a dictionary.

To recap:
Open standards (in my book): useable (free of charge) and viewable by everyone.
Non-open standards: useable at a charge and not publicly viewable.

I understand what you are getting at, what I am saying is that the free/open standards aren't always the best ones. Sometimes the ones you have to pay for are better. The act of trying to make a profit can at points provide for a better standard since the people making the standard have to provide value for money or that standard won't be implimented.

I think DVD has a charge to use... (covered in the cost of your DVD player so you don't actually see it). Again with VHS there is a charge from what I understand (though less than BETAmax).

Please note I am not saying that MS is right for what they do, I am arguing the standards question.

Ignore · 05-19-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagremage

I HATE INTERNET EXPLODER.

Fixed.