| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Boycott Microsoft
Paul D. Smith wrote in message ...
>IE-specific sites, on the other hand, cannot be used unless you're 100%
>Microsoft, including operating system _and_ browser
There are IE sites that let you in if you're using IE on MacIntosh or IE on a couple of Unix platforms, so that's not totally true. And the ones that are restricted to 32-bit platforms only have a reason to be... Mac, Unix, even some of the Windows platforms don't have the capability to run ActiveX, VBScript, DHTML etc.
This is the price we pay for advancement. If we could stand grey backgrounds, <h1> tags, Times New Roman, blue-bordered images and hyperlinks up the wazzu, we'd all still be using IE 2/Netscape 2.
Cheers,
Aaron Bertrand
Lead Integrator
w a t e r w o r k s i n t e r a c t i v e i n c .
http://www.waterworksia.com/
(reply-to altered)
[2]... and that
>implies a lot of other Microsoft tools, too [I don't deny that many of
>the best apps that run on Windows are produced by Microsoft. Not much
>of a coincidence, that, if you ask me, and merely yet another example of
>why Microsoft is a monopoly which should be broken up. But I digress
>:).]
>
>There _IS_ a distinct difference. If the WWW is the next "killer
>technology" for moving computer systems into large numbers of new homes
>and businesses, then restrictions like this _will_ shape the future of
>the 'Net and _do_ represent a distinct anti-competitive, monopolistic
>stance on Microsoft's part.
>
>If IE becomes a standard component on 90% of the home desktops, what
>incentives do Web designers have to support other browsers--or, put
>another way, why should they eschew features known to be IE-only?
>
>Even if people prefer Netscape and go to the trouble of downloading it,
>designers can merely say "well, you also have IE on your system, just
>use that to view our site". This is a significantly different
>statement, in terms of customer annoyance, than "go download another
>browser and use that".
>
>This snowballs and snowballs, and soon people don't even bother starting
>Netscape and Microsoft is controlling the majority of the content of the
>'Net (and they're big enough and hold enough of a monopoly on a huge
>segment of the market to do it, unlike Netscape) and in order to see
>this content you need IE, which means you need Windows... etc.
>
>[1] And now, Netscape actually gives away the source code so you could
> put it on _ANY_ platform.
>
>[2] There are rumors of IE for other platforms, but I've never seen one
> and even if true, those rumors don't posit anywhere near enough
> platforms to make it a truly open browser--and really, I don't trust
> Microsoft to "do the right thing" and produce equally functional
> software on what is essentially software produced by a direct rival
> for their main business advantage. In all honesty, knowing the
> anticompetitive practices they have been busted for in the past and
> those which they still admit to but won't change, do you?
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |
 |