>Rob Guralnick, in his post (Sun, 23 Jul 1995 15:35:36)---
>RE: Incompatibilities (Re: Upgraded WWW presentation)--- made many
>points about the inconsistencies of Web browsers, generally favoring
>Netscape and speaking ill of Mosaic.
I get to say, "thats not the point" a lot in this message. Here is the
first one. My point was that Netscape enhancements may make the page
unreadable for Mosaic clients but may make the page more readable for
Lynx clients. It just means that sometimes using "enhancements" (I
am beginning to hate that word) can be beneficial to people beyond the Netscape
crowd.
>the other 15% that form the underdogs not using Netscape. The
>underdogs do adhere to the specified HTML standards--let's be clear
>about that.
In debate classes, representing yourself as the underdog is a nice
way to win points. But really, bashing Microsoft seems to be the
majority, not minority position... we are getting to that whole shebang,
right?
>10% of all Web users is not an insignificant number of people!!!
>I beg the question, should I and the others not using Netscape be
>rounded up and put to sleep as a humanitarian gesture, as so much of
>the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats are? I AM PROUD TO NOT
>BE USING NETSCAPE! The fact that there is still competition in the
>marketplace makes for a better (software) future (exemptions allowed
>for those who don't follow Darwin's school of thought.) There might
>be other Browsers that might have features AS GOOD or BETTER than
>Netscape... Will users seek better features, or just take whatever
>Netscape provides forever more?
Thats NOT THE POINT. Netscape is a better program than Mosaic. The people
who orginally designed Mosaic back in 1992 (Marc Anderseen, Eric Bina) are
the same people who formed Netscape Comm. Corp. Netscape is a logical
extension of Mosaic in both the software sense and in the "person" sense.
After seeing how Mosaic has wallowed since the departure of these
programmers, I do not
hesitate to call them brilliant.
My allegiance to Netscape is because Netscape is a superior product
and it is available in the public domain. Thats it. If a better program
than Netscape came along, I would use it in a second (as long as it is kept
in the public domain).
>It might be useful to point out that the Federal Trade Commission
>(FTC) is among those who have a hand in the anti-Microsoft sentiment
>(on behalf of the citizens in this country), something which I happen
>to applaud.
Thats not the point. I find bashing Microsoft amusing because a lot of
people who do it, turn around and use Windows, Word for Mac, whatever. If
you do not, congratulations for not being a hypocrite.
>>>>What the hell has Microsoft ever done to you?
>My answer to his question: They are holding back 85% of the world
>from fulfilling their potential as productive human beings. And they
>did it in ways that the FTC possibly finds in violation of the law.
>That is what Microsoft has done to me.
Look, I am not sure I approve of the tactics used by Bill Gates and Microsoft.
I have heard the stories. But I hardly think it is fair to say that they
are holding back 85% of the world from fulfilling their potential as
productive human beings. Its not the point. The point is: lets worry
about something besides how a company decides to conduct its affairs. Lets
worry about the software the company produces. The practices of the
company is an issue between Microsoft and the government. I do not resent
Bill Gates or the company.
>Software allegiance is similar to religious belief---opinions are
>heartfelt to the core and there is no "right" answer. I think that
>these are timely debates because if the general computer user becomes
>complacent and accepts the "most popular" mandate, quality and
>diversity will completely disappear.
Thats the not the point. If better software came along, people would
hopefully use it. Let me be more explicit. Better software means software
that can cope with the inertia of entrenched programs... that is, software
that can provide compatibility with other programs that may be popular but
not as good. Open platforms exist not because of idealism, but because
they allow users to worry less about data format and more about data.
>Alternatives to mediocrity are
>out there. Alternatives to mediocrity need to survive. I AM PROUD TO
>BE AN UNDERDOG, even though I can't claim to be among the 85 or 90
>percentile of popular software usage.
Define mediocrity. I happen to think that Netscape is superior to Mosaic....
if you use a criteria for superiority like percentage of people using the
software, then I am right.
>Best for who, best for what--who decides this
>critical question?
You do.
>I regret the attitude of
>corporate buyers who again in the 1980s would buy only IBM because it
>"is safe." Today it is Windows. But what does the end user need to be
>able to work?
Dude. I built my Web site using freeware. For the longest time, I
owned no corporate software and I got by. As a graduate student, I love
share and freeware and the Internet for promoting such products. I am not a
corporate buyer. But I am not a lunkhead either. When I bought my home
computer, the biggest single investment in my life, I also got Windows because
I like GUI interfaces. Windows works. I do not know what you mean by
"safe"?
>Web browsers should adhere to HTML standards (they can help to evolve
>the standards, yes) and consumers should help to guide the software
>evolution by being vocal about what they need and want.
Actually, it is the HTML language that must adhere or not to the standards,
not the browsers. If you ran a Web site you might think a tiny bit
differently. I want to be able to do sophisticated layouts without doing a
lot of tricks. Netscape enhancements to HTML are the way to go for the
time being.
Cheers,
Robert Guralnick | Department of Integrative Biology | Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley | Berkeley, CA 94720 | (510) 643-9746
|
