@Aaron said:
I know people who dumped Windows for Linux too. Most of them gave up and switched back after 2-3 months (others stuck it out for up to a year before finally giving up).
And I'd bet it's because "it wasn't Windows."
@Aaron said:
I know people who dumped Windows for Linux too. Most of them gave up and switched back after 2-3 months (others stuck it out for up to a year before finally giving up).
And I'd bet it's because "it wasn't Windows."
@morbiuswilters said:
Learn what this means before you use it, otherwise you look ignorant.
Allow me to defend myself: I assumed "you" was referring to me specifically.
@morbiuswilters said:
I tire of this argument.
As do I.
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm so far above your head on this it's pretty ridiculous for me to waste my time trying to explain things like this.
Disappointing. The atmosphere you gave me already made it hard to reply nicely, but there's no point if you have to resort to this.
Well, enjoy your pissing contests here.
@morbiuswilters said:
Since this is a game of Scrabble, I'm going to guess it's a bit more complicated than a few divs and some standards-compliant CSS. Hence, it needs workarounds for incompatibilites between browsers and platforms.
Going to the URI, it appears to be a Flash game, which does *not* require any UA sniffing. If it was a JavaScript game instead, they could check support of methods or properties and use whatever is appropriate, but they still should not completely give up if you use a UA that they aren't expecting, especially when it's a browser that they apparently support.
@morbiuswilters said:
When you get into the real world, you will find that the standards are poorly designed, mostly useless for any kind of real work and that working with IE is always the most important thing.
Ah, ad hominem, I see. I'm sure ignoring the standards and denying any user agent that you don't expect is much better than following documented standards and letting the UA do most of the work.
@morbiuswilters said:
The standards are a mess and so is support of them.
They're the best we've got.
@morbiuswilters said:
Maybe you could join the rest of us in this century?
This is coming from someone who wants to return the dark ages of UA sniffing and exploitation of browser-specific behavior? How ironic.
@morbiuswilters said:
You deliberately cripple your browser and then act like everyone should change to accomodate you? Have fun with that.
No, I deliberately choose not to run untrusted scripting that changes the behavior that I expect from my user agent.
@morbiuswilters said:
@anthetos said:
Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...How precisely would that be? Hell, why even bother? It's not worth the time or effort to take Linux into account for 99% of sites. You might as well worry about Opera and Lynx while you're at it.
Why would they need to take Linux into account? The point is that they wouldn't have to take *anything* into account by not resorting to (badly done) UA sniffing.
@morbiuswilters said:
Obviously it is because you are using Linux. If your OS had a desktop market share larger than 1% it might be weird for them to not take you into account. Otherwise, just change your UA string.
Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...
@morbiuswilters said:
If JS is disabled, I really don't care if the site doesn't work for them. I will display a "turn JS on" message.
Why don't you just use a conditional HTML comment to apply a CSS for IE?
As someone who writes standards compliant pages and browses most sites with JavaScript off, blatant disregard for standards is worse than standards Nazism.
You know what? This is the only forum I have been to where I can be flamed for questioning a post that contains only emphasis with no explanation at all. Instead of an informative reply I get a condescending and useless response. What a lovely community.
@pqueue said:
@anthetos said:
Just because they don't start with the same letter doesn't mean it's wrong.Just read the whole article or the previous versions, do yourself a favour, and shut up.
Do you have a point, or are you just being needlessly hostile?
@pqueue said:
@mxsscott said:
African software and language experts have launched a project to translate Mozilla's Firefox web browser into the local Ugandan language of Luganda.I'm sure they'll get it right eventually.
Just because they don't start with the same letter doesn't mean it's wrong.
@morbiuswilters said:
Hopefully the whole thing will be replace by something like Flash or Silverlight for all but the most basic web pages.
I can understand your disdain of HTML and CSS, but they're the best we've got. Flash (dunno about Silverlight) in its current form is horrible, counterintuitive inaccessible crap and would be a *huge* step backwards.