Disqus - Latest Comments for pd

Re: Thoughts on Chrome & More

pd — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:29:07 -0000

That's nice and fluffy glass half full stuff. There is also the other side of the coin. Firefox market share appears to have peaked at a global 20%. Chrome appears to have killer features that threaten Firefox - including the ultra-simple (surely?) notion of 'caching' JS as machine code (why didn't someone at Mozilla think of that?). Without Firefox there is no search revenue from Google. The market share of browsers other than Firefox and IE is trivial. If Firefox is threatened and doesn't respond faster and better than it has done to date (we release when we feel like it), where the only real threat has come from the glacial Microsoft, then Chrome could blow Firefox out of the water. This could lead to a browser duopoly between Google and Microsoft.

A browser duopoly between two goliaths that are duty-bound by american corporate law to serve their own self interest, and therefore that of their shareholders, is not good for the web.

Let's say that Firefox survives. Arguably Google has enough exposure to push Chrome to a large audience very quickly. Most people who do a search can be offered Chrome and why wouldn't they use it? Lack of extensions? 70% of web users (aka IE users) largely do without extensions. It is feasible that before we see Firefox 4, Chrome could already have taken double digit market share, if not higher. If Firefox maxes out at 20%, is it unreasonable to predict Chrome might eventually take up to 30% or more by the time the Mozilla Google money runs out in 2011? If Chrome + Firefox adds up to a Google search box priority in 50% of browsers, with Microsoft search box priority going to the other 50% of browsers (IE users), what do we have? A web duopoly based on search advertising cash.

The last time the web had a duopoly (1997, Netscape and Microsoft), it destroyed the web for half a dozen years or half the web's life (Netscape died, Microsoft froze it's development until the rise of Mozilla in 2004). Standards were as much of a mess as they are now. What is to say that another duopoly is not going to kill the web again? The same old issues still exist: an ineffective standards body beholden to, and therefore corruptible by, self-interested browser vendors to the point of slow motion; inconsistent implementations of what standards are eventually agreed upon; staggered release schedules, upgrade uptake and reliable usage metrics meaning developers are never sure what code will achieve the desired output for the vast majority of users.

What the web lacks is a legal jurisdiction. Self-regulation has failed. Only the legal power of the EU has proved a big enough sword to force Microsoft to come to the interoperability table after the US Department of Slap-on-the-wrist Justice failed to hand down any meaningful anti-trust remedy. The web needs an alliance of legal entities across the major geopolitical zones of the world that can hand down enforceable requirements on to browser vendors. The web is a public utility like any other infrastructure (roads, energy ...). It is time for that utility to be governed by representatives of the public, not by silicon valley imperialist technical whims.

Re: IE and the Demise of Borgzilla

pd — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:13:29 -0000

Brilliant post. Valuable insight that unfortunately confirms everyone's suspicions that Microsoft should actually be renamed Microsloth. Big and powerful in theory, but in reality just suck so much life out of the world through their own ignorance and stupidity.

Imagine if 'globalisation' was more tangible. For example one company built all the roads around the world. This company was not accountable to any government or body and built the most crappy roads full of pot holes and poor signage, you name it ...

That is what Microsoft is and IExploder is the roads. They UI is the street signs, the rendering engine is the asphalt. Stretch the metaphor further if you like but suffice to say that using IExploder is like only being able to travel on a freeway that is littered with potholes and not being able to demand better from the government responsible for overseeing the freeway's maintenance.

Re: Chris Wilson Speaks and the IEBlog Goes Dark

pd — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:38:19 -0000

Microsoft is a joke. Clearly the IE must be hamstrung again. They've announced zilch about IE8 because they've been put on hold again for another 6 years.

Microsoft, you're a disgrace. If you are going to be a monopoly, why the flip can't you be a benevolent one like Google?

For once, just ONCE, do something for the benefit of someone other than yourselves, for no return. Improve the lives of those who are now (in many cases forced) to use your browser for so many tasks these days.

Maybe this sort of altruism might help your karma and prevent the next version of Windows from being a complete disaster like Vista has been.

Re: Internet Explorer 8 to Pass the Acid2 Test?

pd — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:54:31 -0000

This could be the best news in web design since Firefox 1 -> if they release it in a manner that will eradicate IE6.

Re: Internet Explorer 8 to Pass the Acid2 Test?

pd — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:14:39 -0000

anybody choosing to run Windows prior to XPSP2 should not be allowed on the internet. They are most likely pawns in a huge Russian botnet and therefore a scourge for all other interweb users.

With IE7 and their annoying limitations on distribution, web development sucked that little bit more because cross-browser meant three browsers whereas before it's was two.

If IE8 doesn't eradicate IE6, it's a huge step in the right direction but still leaves developers with a four-browser cross-browser headache.

And yes I don't include Opera or Safari as thankfully they are reasonably standards compliant, excepting their lovely bugs, but they are also pretty much irrelevant in terms of market share.

Re: Internet Explorer 8 to Pass the Acid2 Test?

pd — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:50:38 -0000

your mirror ACID2 page also has a 404 issue!

Great timing for them to have a bloody 404.

Re: Painful Web Standard Decision from IE

pd — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:24:14 -0000

I don't understand. All we have to do is add one extra tag to get the best standards support for all browsers don't we? It may not be ideal but it's a shipload better than living with an IE version that is not ACID2 compliant.

Sure it would be nice for MS to conform to the norms that everyone else uses, but at least they have done the hard bit - fixing their code.

Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

Re: Painful Web Standard Decision from IE

pd — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:26:03 -0000

Hi Al

I see your point about creating a multi-mode, infinite level scenario. It took me a while to take this in.

I suppose my answer to that concern is that there is an issue of sites written for non-standards. They were written in an environment where there was no need to conform to standards other than the proprietary ones imposed by, but supported market-wide via a near-universal market share, IE6.

Now that remained the case for a long time in web years. Microsoft essentially said to developers: here's the web as a frozen APi, with ActiveX as a bonus! (haha) and developers said, you beauty. We have to remember that Microsoft's monopoly is not the only reason that IE6 dominated the market. There was no alternative until a viable Firefox turned up on the back of Google's dollars. Genuine developers had every right to code for IE6 in all it's evil glory. Should Microsoft abandon those people after what, two years (in their terms) of heading down a standards compliance route? I don't think that's all that reasonable.

Therefore the key is that this 'version targeting' has to be a one-version-wonder. The idea of the browser vendor market agreeing to a triple+ standards support environment is madness.

MS should come out and say that whenever IE9 comes about, they will revert to a twin-render-mode model. That way those who have refused to update their IE6 code within approximately a 5 year time frame (from first new of IE7 until delivery of IE9) can reasonably be told to get nodded.

There's a balance issue. Don't kill IE6-developed sites just yet, but kill IE6 and add great standards support. That's what they are doing.

The more developers actually see IE6 disappearing from desktops (something that STILL isn't happening despute IE7's significant public lifetime), they will start looking forward and the only option these antiquated developers will see is heading down the standards road.

As much as I hate the idea, allowing Microsoft to maintain some 'face' to all those developers they conned into loving IE6, whilst gently, slowly moving towards standards, is better than Microsoft sticking their heads in the sand, which they did for many years.

Re: IE8 Changes Stance on Super Standards Mode

pd — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:35:38 -0000

You know what? Who gives a shit what their motivation is. Do we ever really think we are going to get pure truth out of any corporation, let alone MS? Why nitpick about justifications? Store their spun (il)logic / excuse / justification / blah blah. Leave that for using against them the next time we have to pound them into submission.

Today is for celebration. By the end of this year we might have the first ever browser market with half decent markup, styling and behaviour across the board.

Let's be happy and move on to more important things, like why the flip is editing text, or providing a means for others to edit text, on the web so flucking hard? WYSIWYG editors today suck big time. It's way overdue that browser developers pulled their fingers out and turned tags into tags, if you know what I mean! Fluck SVG, Fluck more animated annoyances like APNG. This is supposed to be the read/WRITE web and it's a complete farce!

Re: IE8 Changes Stance on Super Standards Mode

pd — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:38:12 -0000

errr, see what I mean, I can't even write an HTML tag in an editor if I choose! Was meant to be:

"It’s way overdue that browser developers pulled their fingers out and turned <textarea> tags into <tags>, if you know what I mean!"

Re: IE8 Changes Stance on Super Standards Mode

pd — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:38:44 -0000

ahhh

textarea in to texteditor tags, FFS!

Re: IE8 Changes Stance on Super Standards Mode

pd — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:47:36 -0000

@al:

Fully understand Mozilla is a big corporation like any other, exploiting free labor arguably makes it a more dodgy corporation than many others out there. Hence I tend to refer to it as MoFoCo. Bit of a play on FoMoCo (Form Motor Company) except it's also completely appropriate since Mozilla is neither a coporation or a foundation, it's both. It's Mozilla Foundation Corporation or MoFoCo. It's even shorter to type.

I wouldn't take anti-corporate sentiment too personally though if I was you. Often it's aimed at truly evil corporations like Enron and MS.

However maybe you might want to watch some of the anti-Corporate documentaries that have been made recently. Do you really think it's a good thing that Corporations in the good ol' Yew Es of Ayyy have the same rights as people? Do you think it's a good idea that Corporations have an obligation to self-preservation rather than promoting community sustainability?

Anyway, that's all waaaaay off topic :)

Re: IE Sends Mozilla a New Cake for Firefox 3

pd — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:45:12 -0000

This can't be. Microsoft is, err, evil innit? :)

Now if only they could work on their CSS support, starting with border-radius, they might get their karma heading back towards earth from down there near hell.

Re: User Friendly on IE Cake

pd — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:11:48 -0000

ok, time for the free publicity for that piece of junkware to stop! They are riding on the coattails of all the hard work put in by thousands of volunteers when they pay millions to their developers and can't implement simple things like border-radius

Re: Looking for a photo-sharing system

pd — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 05:22:02 -0000

http://coppermine-gallery.net/index.php

Re: boxee blog » linux version is available

pd — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:13:03 -0000

how can I apply for an invite? I signed up to the forum but can't see any invite or download option

Re: Firefox 3 Excessive Disk IO and Freezing | Tombuntu

pd — Sun, 11 May 2008 13:03:19 -0000

Another cause of such nightmares can be the buggy Linux version of Adobe's Flash Player.

Check to see if you are visiting any sites with a lot of Flash objects or only one or two that may be quite intensive.

An example is some bullshit bottom right of screen popin video ad on Gizmodo. I block ads but a friend said he was having a nightmare with Firefox on Hardy and I diagnosed Flash as the problem.

To reduce this problem, I recommend Ad Block as it will block Ads in Flash leaving hopefully enough resources for the youtube players and such on sites to work as normal, whether embedded inside Flash players or not.

Re: Transform Ubuntu into a Media Center with XBMC | Tombuntu

pd — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:38:07 -0000

I've tried XBMC on both windows and ubuntu. Let's be honest, it's not perfect. For those to whom HTPC is a term that include P(D)VR, forget it. XBMC has absolutely zero TV functionality.

Want a two column view to browse through movies, with a full-height portrait-oriented poster in one column and all the detail in the other column? Sounds like a nice way to browse huh? Not possible with the default skin at least.

Hoping to get XBMC to tear through your media collection and assign meta data a a reasonable speed with your superduper broadband connection whilst not making any errors? Not likely unfortunately. However it also has to be said that with the fan art and so on, XBMC does do a the best job (eventually), of current HTPC software, at getting good meta data.

Also, don't try to view some of the meta data gathering results before it's finished that loooong harvesting process. You'll freeze the application (not crash, freeze).