Printable View
Still nothing. I'm using 1.5 tho, I'm not sure what version you have (it may be a location aware ad - and not being shown to me as I'm in the wrong country).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
I fully agree on the "free software" thing, thankfully there are several people (especially in this thread) who keep their comments in based on the facts rather than the hype.
I have 1.5.0.1. These are my settings. Also note, I purposefully do not have any plug-ins installed, including Flash. That may have something to do with it...
It is essentially a virgin install.
No problems with that site here, tested it with Fx 1.5.0.1 and Bon Echo V2.0a ;)
Bon Echo?
It's the Alpha Release of Firefox 2. I'm using it portable though as the uninstaller doesn't work properly yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
Just like the product itself name is weird too. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
It's a codenamed release, just like Longhorn, Whistler... etc. etc. Course its weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
what distro were you testing with? If it was gentoo or some other 'bleeding-edge' distro then you might be correct, but comparing with debian 'stable' windows would lose quite quickly. it also depends on what GUI you are using with linux (gnome/kde/iceWM/enlightenment/fluxbox/etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
this would only be true for development on MS-Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
I haven't had any worms, trojans and virus problems either in my soon ten years of PC experience, the problem with IE is spyware, adware and similar malware that just kept coming when I used it. And I didn't visit any "suspicious sites", just the regular ones like this one. Since using Firefox as my main browser I haven't had issues with this kind of stuff, actually haven't checked for it in ages as it is dull always looking into the statistic of not having anything that I don't want to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
I'm not completely into free software, I can't get myself to root into Linux and I don't like Java a whole lot (slow, crashes browser too often or makes it unstable). Actually I might get a Mac rather than switch to some Linux distribution. The world of Linux is all too complicated in some areas. Print me a list of distributions and their main key features and you'd be ready to give it to me some time next year - if you have a very fast printer.
However, if we take a look into free software as a whole, the codebase isn't the only thing that makes people choose it instead of MS software. I like the way free software tends to have a community around it and you can become a part of it with your own activity. This is something that isn't possible with IE, atleast not in the same way or as entirely. A regular user finds this useful mainly when getting help as there are more people who know more about the browser and how it works.
Too bad there are people who are too passionate and fanatic about something. Atleast when it comes into the context of using what they use themselves. A few days ago I bumped into an Avant browser fanatic, was really hard to get a picture of where Avant is good in from all the arguing; and I've seen a few for Firefox and IE alike. The best way to go is to just ignore them as they aren't a solid fact about a browser. The only good thing about a fanatic is that if he is a creative fanatic, he'll probably do something useful to for whatever he is using.
Visual Basic is not free and VBF has, in my opinion, one of the best user-support groups I have ever seen. There is a wonderful community built around a non-free product, so I disagree that only free products have such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
The rest of your post just reminded me of something. The whole FF-IE thing... they are just f*ing web browsers. They are just a couple steps up from notepad for crying out loud. Neither product deserve the passion the entire debate has rendered them.
I was 1st in line to dump on IE 3.0 in the 90's. I watched 1st-hand as Netscape's 80-90% penetration withered away to nothing over a couple year's time. How? I'll tell you how. M$ bundled IE 3.0 in their OS, plain and simple. As they sold new OS's each one would be counted as a IE user. I watched with dismay as the monopoly moniker was revoked, and M$ was allowed to conduct "business as usual".
Crap the thread may have gone off on a tangent, sorry Hack.
You misunderstood the word "free"; I meant open source "free". For the rest of your post, my webdeveloper me disagrees greatly on "a couple of steps up from notepad". Thanks to Firefox, Opera and Safari the web is moving into a better direction once again and new things can be done. I and many others find this essential for the web as a whole. Some people also use browsers several hours a day. They matter far more than a notepad, atleast to a regular user. Thus browsers matter quite a bit and are important and it is entirely ok to discuss about them.
This isn't the 90's. And if you don't like people talking about the browsers, you can just skip the thread and not provoke more discussion and then say you don't want to see it.
I wholeheartedly appreciate "discussion" about web-browser technology which is why I joined this discussion. I fully comprehend web-browsers' place in the world today.
What I do not appreciate is unbridled, irrational diatribes over them which appear all too often on the 'net. Sorry for any confusion. This thread has been pretty good about it.
I just found a pro-FF and neg-IE:
At www.weather.com I looked up a nearby city's temp for the weekend. For kicks, I tried selecting text on the page. To my chagrin, IE would not let me select any text. Must have been some lame JS.
Loaded the same page in FF, and was able to select any text I wanted, same JS I suppose, maybe not.
Maybe some might consider this a negative toward FF for not fully implementing lame-JS crap, but I give it a thumbs-up on this point.
I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here, but is it possible that you have FF set to allow you to select text on a page? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
Al,
That is an extremely long limb.
:)
No, some web developers have figured out ways to prevent you from copying site content. This may be in IE by design.
It is one of the reasons I started looking into alternate browsers in the 1st place. As I stated in my earlier post, my FF is a default installation. Nothing special going on. Try that site to find out.
Strange ... I can copy anything I want on that page using my default installation of IE 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
"Severe weather potential
9:34 a.m. ET Thu.,Apr.6,2006
A major storm system will dump heavy snow across the Rockies and Intermountain West before moving into the Plains and triggering a severe weather outbreak."
Copied there and pasted here.
Did you try going to the weekend forecast? That is where I cannot select text. I even chose the "Select All" option from the context menu. Nothing.
Another minus for FF: I made a VB.NET web app in Vis Stud 2003 and it looks correct when displayed in IE, but all messed up in FF. FF not good for displaying content created in VS. Not sure if that's been mentioned.
I'm not an HTML expert, but I can't find anything obvious in the source of the page that would prevent copying. But you're right - you can't copy that table - or anything else on that page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
I've seen a great many sites that looked bad in this browser or that - it comes from using browser-specific tricks. I'd suspect that VS is too tightly linked to IE - if you don't force it to play nice it does things that other browsers don't like. That's one reason I use Dreamweaver to do web pages. (Refusing to wear a "Sucker" label is another reason I don't .not.)Quote:
FF not good for displaying content created in VS. Not sure if that's been mentioned.
This is the code that does it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
Can be found in the <body> tag of the page. All the ondrag stuff is IE-proprietary non-webstandard stuff, although Opera supports it as well as Opera has since beginning been trying to copycat many IE's features for compatibility. Some Opera releases have even copied IE's bugs which I've found to be rather funny - atleast they've fixed back to non-buggy behaviour when people complained about it :)Code:ondragstart="return false" ondrag="return false" ondragend="return false" onselectstart="return false" onselect="return false"
Uh, no-one I know of uses Visual Studio to "make web pages". We are talking about alot of intense server-side processing going on; the web pages are simply outputs of the results. The WYSIWYG property of the VS-IE relationship is invaluable. I have alot of work to do, and f*ing around with table layouts and what-not is frankly a waste of my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al42
I design the layout in VS, and IE displays it precicely as it is designed.
I've used DW and it's great for making static web pages, but cannot help you do any server-side programming (unless something really drastic has changed).
Yeah, thats an unfortunate part of the code that VS/ASP.NET produces.
If you dont use the designer, you can take care of it through CSS and get it working in both, but like you say you lose the convienence of it.
Ideally VS and IE shouldn't have a relationship - they should both work to their best independently, and then things would be compatible - but what's the chance of that?
But doesn't that just make Visual Studio worthless for doing any stuff for the web? If it works with only one browser that is rapidly becoming less and less used, there is no point using it's WYSIWYG features? You're only making more trouble for yourself later on when you have to fix your code to give output that'll work with any browser. If you try to tell people to use IE because that is where it works, you'll only drive people away from the site.
Waste of time or not, doing it right in the first place will save you time in the end.
Not in the slightest. In today's technology climate, architects like me are forced to marry technologies like COM/DCOM, JAVA, OPC, Databases, ERP systems, all into a single, cohesive functioning system (a system of systems).Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
Visual Studio is not only an invaluable tool for this; it is quite simply the only tool that can accomplish the task. You mat cringe, you may shout, yell, and stomp. It's just a fact.
It's not a question of "doing it right." I's a matter of "doing it" at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
Again, try to understand I am not in the business of "making web pages." Our web pages are a small piece of a much larger puzzle. What do I care if some chuckle-heads out there made a browser that doesn't display my web pages?
I'll grant you this: If your job is "making web pages" with no interactivity with any other technology, then it would be silly for you to use VS; definately use DW for that!
If that "chuckle-head" is a large customer, and he tells you to get your site working so he can use Firefox to browse it or he'll take his business elsewhere, you have some work to do. Or maybe not - it depends on your business model. I tend to write the code my customer wants - I found it makes more profit than trying to force him to use the code I prefer to write.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
By chuckle-head I didn't mean a customer, I am referring to the large body of individuals out there all making their own version of web browsers. I assume they are typically following the web standards pretty closely, but how many web browsers do we really need to support?
Any customer can be told "you need this or it won't work." Using IE has never been a problem for anyone. Windows is a standard platform, and IE (and all it's flaws) are available.
I do get some instances where I have to arm-wrestle with the IT-security peeps, but it is never about IE; it's always about following thier SoX and ISO implementations and other security considerations.
If a customer demands that I "support" multiple browsers, I can do that too; it will just triple the cost of the system.
Did anyone else notice FF does not even display this site correctly?
IE displayed it perfectly...
I get the same on the PM screen, but that is the only "flaw" that I am aware of.
I think somebody said that this is due to that area being specifically designed to work around the flaws in IE, rather than a problem with Fx per se.
At some point in the future it should be fixed by vBulletin (who make the software for this site).
It's fixed in the 3.5 branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
Did you also notice that it is 88 errors on that page, so that means that IE is drawing errors as it was right? Have you thought about the possibility that Fx actualy draws it right, and not IE?
- ØØ -
And for those who don't know, I wrote in my blog yesterday that the Gecko Reflow branch yesterday passed the Acid 2 test...:)
- ØØ -
Of course, I'm not an idiot. The point is about ease of development for a single browser that you know everybody uses, as opposed to the diminishing returns of supporting everybody's pet browser in the world (regardless of the "correctness" of the browser).Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
I totaly agree. So that is why I support designing for a browser that supports the standards. WOuldn't you feel it awkward if you had to write your VB apps with 88 erros to make them compile???
- ØØ -
If I were to do this, then 90% of my customers would be dissatisfied with my product(s). I would not stay in business very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
I think when developing today we should be looking at where the web will be in a few years time. What are the trends, who is moving where, so that you target the correct platforms, technologies. Future proofing basically.
Right at this point in time we have a divide between the pure standards route and the IE-compatible route, which is awkward. But if you look at what the browser vendors are doing, they are all moving toward standards-compliance. Microsoft included - IE 7 is a decent move in this direction, even if they still have a way to go to catch up to the others yet.
So if you make an educated assumption that this trend is going to continue indefinitely, the wise choice would be to develop for the standards, because that is what everyone else is doing. This ensures your product is future proof, it minimises the effort required to maintain it in the future (think changing bits of code every time a bug is fixed in IE), and makes it cross platform compatable, giving you a wider market as a result. Developing for IE alone is like shooting at a moving target, because IE itself is moving toward standards compliance.
To continue w.r.t. your comment -Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Sell
Developing a web-based product that is standards-compliant does not mean breaking it in Internet Explorer, and ensure it works in IE does not mean abandoning standards. Compliance does not mean you have to use all the latest-and-greatest features supported by 0.0005% of all browsers. It simply means a compatible and accessible product.
You are talking about shutting out 10% or 90% of customers. I'm saying you don't have to shut out any :)
Great advice - nicely stated - thoughfully prepared.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I would assume, however, that Microsoft will do this work for me in their future releases of Visual Studio thus allowing me to continue my blissful ignorance. I am speaking as an information architect designing a system of systems, not a web developer designing elaborate web pages. Allow me to upload a diagram of an architecture I recently designed.
As you may notice from the diagram, Visual Studio is the glue which ties all the disparate pices together here. The web-page output happens at the HMIs near the bottom of the diagram and are not exactly elaborate web pages. They are designed less for asthetics and more for functionality. We use IE. It all works. It was not easy. Adding the complexity of supporting multiple browsers would crank up my cost too much.
Try doing a acid2 test on FF & IE. FF almost passes. Opera does pass the test.
If something won't show in IE correctly, it's not worth looking. Not because the contents are useless but because the creator ignores 80% of the internet users...in 99% of the cases that means useless contents anywayz. The fact that I haven't seen in months the once trendy sites that say 'sorry, we won't show anything in your IE' speaks for itself. Not that I actually bookmarked them to check later if they'd work with my browser or installed something else to see them.