What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
435 Comments
- thetanbark, on 12/14/2007, -12/+390As a web developer who has to deal with IE's pathetic render engine on a daily basis, I can whole-heartedly say...
Thank You, Opera, for standing up for all web developers. - rupertmorris, on 12/14/2007, -14/+251I'd like to see increased standards compliance.
- Berkana, on 12/14/2007, -11/+189IE sucks balls. Screw IE. Not a single project I've ever worked on failed to be made more complicated, more frustrating, more expensive, or more restricted by having to support IE and its bizzare and maddening bugs in every version out there, including 7.
To be honest, if IE were to suddenly become 100% W3C compliant, it would probably benefit Microsoft more than Mozilla; much of the ill will against IE by the developer community would be placated, and the pressure to switch to FireFox or more compliant browsers would be off. If IE were totally W3C compliant, there would be no particular reason to switch to another browser but for features or plug ins, which Microsoft could easily match. The web would be a better place. I sure hope Microsoft gets a clue. - everest40, on 12/14/2007, -6/+108I'd love to see standards compliance in IE.
- arbulus, on 12/14/2007, -15/+108I am all for standards compliance and I think there needs to be more of it.
However, I'm not down with their stance on trying to for MS not to bundle IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari, and ever Linux distro bundles Firefox, Konqueror, Dillo, or some sort of browser. Yet, everyone seems to think it's ok for Apple and the various Linux distros, but it's not ok for Windows? I'm not down with that. Let MS bundle IE. Besides, how can you download and use Opera if you don't have some sort of web browser to begin with? There is nothing preventing people from downloading Firefox, Opera, Netscape or anything else in Windows. Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Windows and I hate IE, but they are not actively trying to bar you from downloading anything else, because if that were the case, then you could claim unfair business practices. But if MS doesn't prevent you from downloading something else, then I don't see anything wrong.
But raising awareness and pushing standards compliance is a good thing, but getting the government involved is ***** and is not the way to go. The gov't should have nothing to do with this situation. The only way to truly force compliance is to comply yourself and encourage others to do so, so when all of the major web players are complying and MS isn't, then everyone will see how ***** they are and won't use IE. - nova912, on 12/14/2007, -1/+61The damage is done (speaking as a web developer), it's going to be years before you can stop making websites with out having to check if it looks right in IE5.5-6. Too many people use XP and don't update though windows update. So meh, your skrwed by your largest user base.
- riumplus, on 12/14/2007, -2/+58I would cut off my left hand if it meant I wouldn't have to deal with IE ever again. It would be less painful and I'd still get projects finished faster one-handed.
- Tippis, on 12/14/2007, -4/+56Safari, Firefox, Konqueror only come *with* the OS -- they are not an irreplacable part of it. They do not drive the OS' web-aware services. They can be freely removed or replaced. Not so with IE, and since it is *unavoidable* (and, more importantly, so are its flaws) when targetting the Windows platform, MS requires people to break standards, which makes things harder for those who have chosen to actually follow the standards.
That's the issue here: if MS wants to keep it a core part of the OS, then it needs to be standards-compliant; if they want to keep it non-compliant, it shouldn't be a part of the OS. - worbd, on 12/14/2007, -9/+54"This is strictly Opera being a cry baby because they can't get market share like Firefox."
Nonsense.
This move by Opera actually *helps* Firefox.
Opera is "crying" because Microsoft keeps ignoring standards even to this day. The time was now to do this since the EU is already investigating Microsoft. - quii, on 12/14/2007, -3/+32My dad is a complete and utter computer noob
hes also on 56k
If you redirect him to getfirefox.com, he wont download it. And why should he? His internet "works".
Unfortunately most people couldnt give a toss about standards, theres no point in punishing end-users over our passion and Microsofts lameness. - inactive, on 12/14/2007, -2/+31We all know how this will end:
1- Microsoft will not make IE fully standard compliant NEVER.
2- The EU will fine Microsoft.
3- Microsoft will pay the sum of money to the EU commission.
4- We will be still being ***** by IE and its "standards compliance". - dinostabOMG, on 12/14/2007, -9/+38You have no right to tell the EU how to run its fair trade policies.
- rmd34, on 12/14/2007, -5/+30This is alot more serious than people realize, at least in the long-term. I applaude Opera for taking this step.
Under a Microsoft regime, they've already proven, time and again, that if given the opportunity - they'll continue to write their own internal closed and proprietary standards. Add the support of major portals and the threat of continued purchases of Web 2.0 companies (per Ballmer: 20 companies per year for 5 years, 50 million to 1 billion per purchase - not counting their partnerships and web projects) and we could all be looking at a Microsoft internet in the long-term as their influence would be difficult to circumvent.
I use Opera and many of the unnecessary compatibility issues I already have on the web are on Microsoft related sites.
If you thought the compatibility issues arising from their DOC format was a problem (or their bastardized form of open source in the form of OOXML) - imagine the stranglehold they would have on the industry if they continue to undermine the freedoms we enjoy on the web today by locking web development to their proprietary tools. Even alternative OSes would be effected since Internet Explorer remains (unnecessarily) tied to ONLY the latest OS offering from this company - another benefit to Microsoft in the form of forced OS upgrades.
This is a fight for the future of the internet as well as a fight for the desktop that needs to be fought today. Opera is doing the only thing they can do and it will benefit everyone. I hope that the Mozilla Foundation does not rest on any short-term gains they've made and joins with Opera in regard to this - their support will help coalesce this effort. - Shawn4168, on 12/14/2007, -7/+30I don't want to agree with you, but you're right...they really shouldn't be able to force Microsoft to bundle other browsers with their operating systems.
- Theisos, on 12/14/2007, -4/+26The EU does a better job of making Corporations play nice than the US does. Nothing like a good punch in the ***** face to keep things in order.
- Darkx1337, on 12/14/2007, -2/+23I wish they would let you uninstall IE.
- fr34k5h0w, on 12/14/2007, -3/+23Yes you can download and install any other browser of your choice, but Internet Explorer is tied so deeply into the operating system in XP that you can't go to Windows Update without it (though I guess you could use Automatic Updates instead). Safari is easily removed (drag it to the trash) and Linux lets you uninstall it, but IE cannot be uninstalled in any normal way. Though I do not know how deeply it is tied into Vista as I haven't tried uninstalling it yet.
- bouche, on 12/14/2007, -8/+27How would anyone even be able to download opera if IE wasn't included with Windows?
- Dunhamzzz, on 12/14/2007, -9/+28Ie makes every webdevelopers job that little bit more harder!
- cooldude1561, on 12/14/2007, -4/+22i actually want to see other open source browsers join in and finally put Microsoft to rest.
- mishsquish, on 12/14/2007, -15/+33***** it. I'm going to start boycotting IE by redirecting IE-blets to getfirefox.com
I may be losing potential clients, but that loss won't even compare to the loss of hair associated with trying to get sites to work on IE6.
Who's with me? - SniperZero, on 12/14/2007, -2/+20Also everyone viewing this page in IE ***** you too.. your 50% of the problem. Go get a better browser.
- echo2501, on 12/14/2007, -4/+20For a second I read that as Oprah tries to force IE into W3C compliance.
... and thought for that second getting Oprah behind the movement might actually get something done about it. - ell0bo, on 12/14/2007, -2/+18Obviously you haven't tried pushing the boundaries of what a web page can do. If all you want to do is create a page that's as simple as every other page, just shows data in a plain form... then yeah, the problems are very predictable. You want to push the boundaries... say create your own windows meebo style... have fun with the select bug that floats the select box to an infinitely high index no matter what you do. Or the bug where you push ajax data into a floated region and it decides to derender a different section of the page. Yeah, it's a wonderful thing that IE browser and shouldn't cause any slow downs because of how slightly off it is.
- technogenius, on 12/14/2007, -6/+22You neglected to mention dealing with IE's horrible garbage collection as well
- Nanobe, on 12/14/2007, -1/+16I'd like Microsoft to release a fully standards-compliant browser. I'd also like Opera, Mozilla, or Apple to release a fully standards-compliant browser. Unfortunately, even if you're just talking about HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.x, CSS 2.1 (not *officially* ready for implementation yet, but more reliable than trying to implement CSS 2.0 now), and the basic ECMAScript and DOM modules, no browser yet has full compliance. Firefox is closest in some areas, Opera in others, and Safari in yet others, but no one is "fully standards-compliant" yet. The standards are very complex and it takes years to implement, no matter how big your development team is.
Right now, Internet Explorer is about five years behind the other three, since Microsoft completely stopped platform development for five years and have since been developing it at roughly the same pace as the other browsers. So yes, IE is clearly the most in need of improvement. But let's not resort to hyperbole and suggest that it should -- or even can -- become fully standards-compliant in any small amount of time. Development speed is not infinitely adjustable, no matter how much money you have. Oftentimes, adding more developers simply causes more bureaucracy and ends up slowing down the project. You have to accept what is and isn't realistically possible, and it just isn't realistically possibly for IE to catch up to the other browsers anytime soon.
That said, I have absolutely no objections to Opera or anyone else calling Microsoft out for its poor product quality. Too many people just assume that there's no big difference in the underlying platform because we web developers are expected to cover up those differences in our websites, often through a lot of ugly bloat and hacks. - bxblox, on 12/14/2007, -3/+17ftp
- IEatHamburgers, on 12/14/2007, -1/+14That would worry me... there's gotta be at least one browser on a PC, even if it's only used once to download Firefox or Opera.
- weeeezzll, on 12/14/2007, -2/+15Actually they can. The reason it is a problem when MS does it but not when Apple of Linux does it, is because the EU has determined that MS has a monopoly on the desktop, and bundling IE violates antitrust laws because IE doesn't properly support standards and thus forces you into a MS specific world and deeper into their monopoly. *takes a long breath* If IE properly supported standards then this would not be an issue, but it doesn't and sites still after almost 15 years you still have to jump through hoops and code incredibly complex work arounds for you page to display properly in IE.
One set of code for IE and one for ALL others. - mishsquish, on 12/14/2007, -1/+14Think that through again.
- cmer, on 12/14/2007, -3/+15As much as I hate to admit it, this complaint is not gonna fly. AFAIK, abiding to W3C is not a law and companies can do whatever they want with it.
However, it is clear to me that Microsoft's only reason for not supporting W3C is to lock people in. If this can be proven, then the claim might go somewhere. But unfortunately, I doubt it will. - EntropyMan, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Bundling is neither illegal, immoral, or unethical -- unless you have a monopoly, in which case it is at the very least illegal. That's the bottom line. One monopoly, naturally occurring or otherwise, can't and shouldn't be used to leverage another monopoly.
Microsoft also breaks standards intentionally, IMO, to further distort what should ideally be a level playing field. The fact that Microsoft apparently feels they can't compete purely on the merits of their technology is telling, and their tactics are anti-capitalistic and anti-free market. Anyone who defends their tactics (without being paid to do so) is a fool. - ucg1, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14Run cmd.exe and type:
ftp ftp.opera.com
use "anonymous" as user and anything for password
type the following:
cd /pub/opera/win/950b/en
bi
get Opera_9.50b_Eng_Setup.exe
Done! - isntreal, on 12/14/2007, -3/+15grammar makes your life more harder
- Elranzer, on 12/14/2007, -2/+13Arbulus you have a point but there's a small difference... Microsoft developers both Windows and Internet Explorer. This amounts to huge market share (aka "great power" which requires "great responsibility"). Since it is the browser most people will use, because it's default, MS should be responsible enough to make it standards-complient rather than prorietary (ActiveX, Silverlight, heir own weird interpretation of CSS, etc).
For Linux, any bundled browsers are developed by different groups. SuSE, RedHat, Canonical, etc do not develop browsers. As for Apple, they came up with Safari and its interface but technically it is a skinned version of Konqueror, developed by the KDE group. - swordedge, on 12/14/2007, -0/+11I once saw a comment by an MS VP that explains IE perfectly. "We ARE the standard, why should we comply with standards?"
- AlexFerny, on 12/14/2007, -3/+14Then the 90% of the sites dont deserve to be there if they are not W3C compliant
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -1/+12not to mention the way they classify js errors... i get into this mode one too many times... OBJECT EXPECTED?? WHAT THE ***** MAN!
good thing tho, they fixed the infinite z index bug for drop downs. that really pisses me off when im tryin to do a mouse over near a dropdown...
i wonder how microsoft web programmers work... they must be losing hair all the time. - roostersheep, on 01/16/2009, -0/+11I can only speak for myself here, but I'm digging you down because you're throwing irrelevant comments about. Perhaps you're generalising assumptions about the digg community's favor of Ron Paul would be more appreciated in the political opinion section. For now, here's a hint: Pointing out that the digg community are going to digg you down doesn't always prevent it from happening.
- quii, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12You're so wrong its unfunny. And were not impressed with your proclamation, because we know its not true.
You *always* have to tinker a bit to make things work with internet explorer 5/6/7. Unless the sites you are making are as simple as hell with basically no layout.
Or does your magical coding hands somehow get around IE6's implementation of the box model? - renegadeafk, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10Opera isn't open source
- Tippis, on 12/14/2007, -2/+12Not the way IE is bundled with Windows, no.
You can remove and replace all of those with ease, and with no ill affects to the system. You cannot remove or replace IE and its related services. - mithrasinvictus, on 12/14/2007, -0/+10Did IE fail to render the "Reply to this comment" link?
- jonshipman, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10They are standards compliant
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/14/2007, -5/+14Best to just give them a "Sorry your browser is too old but here's a link to the update" message screen.
- r3zonance, on 12/14/2007, -1/+10"And frankly, as a developer...if you're spending more than a few minutes fixing browser differences, then you really need to rethink your career...I've never had to spend more than maybe 15 minutes solving a browser issue...develope for standards...and IE works most of the time.."
What you said only holds true if the standards you are developing to are HTML3.2. Throw some CSS and more modern ideas into the mix and you are very much screwed (unordered lists as pretty menus with CSS for example). - Sibre, on 12/14/2007, -0/+9That doesn't actually uninstall IE. All that does is remove the link to IE from your start menu and elsewhere. IE is still very much alive and ticking in the background.
- njaguar, on 12/14/2007, -2/+11Ignorance is bliss.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -24/+33Do Macs come Bundled with Safari? What about Linux Distros? While Opera is at it, take down Apple!
While you are at it, Fords only seem to use Firestone Tires, I think I should be able to get my car without tires, and put them on when I buy the car. - ColinCampbell, on 12/14/2007, -2/+10That's an absolutely laughable statement. If you were working in the web field, you would loath IE just as much as everyone else who is actually being paid to work and knows what they're talking about. All browsers have their quirks, but IE is the browser that is in a relative stone-age as far as standards compliance goes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 439 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is