/ INFO-VAX	Mon, 02 Jan 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 3       Contents:J Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert  ...)I Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) I RE: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) I Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) P Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...)..P Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...)..P Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...)..' Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console ' Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console ' Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console ' Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:09:14 +1300$ From: "Lurker" <nowhere@nothing.com>S Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert  ...) 4 Message-ID: <lq3uf.11851$vH5.587139@news.xtra.co.nz>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message& news:43B8BC14.19E2EFA6@teksavvy.com...  F > Another bank makes you confirm your deposit 3 times before the mouthJ > opens to let you put in the envelope. And, unlike other banks, they spitJ > out the receipt before asking if you want another transaction. This bankJ > has a higher than average rate of cards forgotten in ATMs. Yet, whomeverD > is in charge of user-interface is clueless on his/her design being? > resposnible for people forgetting their cards in the machine.   B Reminds me of a bank here which, years ago, made the same mistake.G The cash would come out of the ATM first, people would take it, turn on L their heel and leave with the card still in the machine. It was happening soG often that software had to be changed so that the card comes out first, G then the receipt if you have asked for it, and only then the cash. Most 4 people don't leave the ATM until the cash is out ...   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jan 2006 18:51:27 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)R Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...), Message-ID: <41qmleF1f1vdiU1@individual.net>  = In article <seKdnZwmQP1shiXeRVn-jQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, + 	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >  > ...  > C >>        "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot B >>         change, the courage to change the things I can, and the? >>         wisdom to know the difference. " - Reinhold Niebuhr   > J > The final phrase being the crux of the matter in this case.  Especially H > with a Web-based issue like this one, it's surprising how many people F > still feel that individuals can't come together and actually affect 	 > events    A How many Linux users are there worldwide?  Heck, they even have a @ marketing branch (which is more than VMS has, but that's another7 story).  Who is winning the desktop?  Linux or Windows?   F >        (the perception of an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut of a few I > years ago comes to mind:  that perception didn't just fade away on its  H > own, nor was the fade pushed by corporate interests - even IBM was on E > board at the time, and Sun was only temporizing rather than in its   > current full-attack mode).  C Bad example.  Itanic was a mistake from the beginning.  As a matter D of fact, it even helps prove my point.  With everyone jumping on theC bandwagon and all the really important companies backing it (except C Sun, but then, no one would argue that they are important any more) ' it still failed to dominate the market.    > J > Web browsing is a situation where  1) a large percentage of individuals & > have a free choice in what to use,    F No, they don't.  What they use (outside of their house) is dictated byF corporate policy on the part of both the browser and the content side.D If your coprorate IT department refuses to allow the installation ofC "rogue" programs (which they should)  you use what they provide, in B most cases IE because it comes with Windows and has BG's blessing.E If the sites you have to access (we're not talking about google, ebay G or yahoo) only work with IE, then you have to use IE.  Most people will B not want to have to jump back and forth between different browsersB depending on which site they visit.  And we won;t even go into theB potential problems one can create by installing one of these other@ browsers. I used to be a big supporter of Opera.  Until it brokeA MS updates :-( leaving me with a vulnerable machine that couldn't E be fixed without a reinstall because no matter what I did I could not G make IE my default browser again in order for MS updates to work again.   G >                                    2) very viable alternatives to IE  : > exist (Firefox just being the most prominent right now: H > Mozilla-ne-Netscape has been around forever, and Opera - now free and : > without ads for personal use - for quite a while), and    F Which doesn't change the fact that if the sites you have to visit only  work with IE you have to use IE.  I >                                                         3) what people  B > use is actually visible via the stats which are accumulated and H > published (though which may understate the use of products like Opera J > which can masquerade convincingly as IE when the need arises).  If ever D > there were an environment where a better mousetrap could flourish K > without massive corporate sponsorship, this is it (and that indeed seems   > to be occurring).   I And what I see is a move in the other direction. The larger corporation's = webpages are becomming more and more IE specific.  Go figure.    > G > IE isn't likely to disappear, of course.  But its days as a de facto  I > standard may well already be fading or gone, with what we're currently  I > seeing just reflecting the fact that updating *existing* sites to meet  K > the real standards isn't that high a priority (given that other browsers  I > don't seem to be having that much difficulty dealing with them anyway).   J It has never been BG's desire to abide by standards.  I see  no reason whyJ that would change as long as he is on top.  And I see no likelihood of hisG being toppled anytime soon.  Heck, Time magazine wants to canonize him.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:32:35 -0500' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> R Subject: RE: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...)R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB7738E6@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----$ > From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20A > [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon  > Sent: January 1, 2006 1:51 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com @ > Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year=20 > with a major cert ...) >=20 [snip..]   >=20@ > And what I see is a move in the other direction. The larger=20 > corporation's ? > webpages are becomming more and more IE specific.  Go figure.  >=20  G Not what I am seeing and I deal with lots of large corporations e.g. HP G has a multi-browser policy. I am sure IBM has a similar approach. While G there may be occasional issues, both companies certainly do not want to H tell their Linux or any other platform Customers that they need to buy a@ PC and install Windows to access their web pages with no issues.  > It sounds like your specific IT department has bought into theF proprietary approach as it simplifies the work that they have to do at; the expense of the schools future business requirements.=20   G However, when your school starts sharing information with other schools D and/or has students taking courses remotely using Linux or Mac basedF desktops, or students want to access stuff on their PDA's, cell phonesD and iPods, then all of your schools proprietary web work is going to cause big problems.   H Bottom line is that businesses can no longer afford to not be compatibleB with other companies and end users - whatever their chosen browser technologies are.   G The IT techies can no longer make decisions that make their life easier < at the expense of the business. At least not in any well run
 organization.   G Btw, I have been using Opera for years and never had any issues with MS G upgrades. ActiveX and NTLM authentication issues yes, but then these MS G proprietary technologies are part of the reason why IE is so highly and = easily attacked and is one of the reasons why I use Opera.=20      Regards     
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Jan 2006 01:08:19 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)R Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...), Message-ID: <41rco3F1g6o7uU1@individual.net>  G In article <O8KdnRrif94RrSXenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>, + 	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:@ >> In article <seKdnZwmQP1shiXeRVn-jQ@metrocastcablevision.com>,. >> 	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >>   >>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >>>  >>>... >>>  >>> D >>>>       "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannotC >>>>        change, the courage to change the things I can, and the @ >>>>        wisdom to know the difference. " - Reinhold Niebuhr  >>> K >>>The final phrase being the crux of the matter in this case.  Especially  I >>>with a Web-based issue like this one, it's surprising how many people  G >>>still feel that individuals can't come together and actually affect  
 >>>events  >>   >>  D >> How many Linux users are there worldwide?  Heck, they even have aC >> marketing branch (which is more than VMS has, but that's another : >> story).  Who is winning the desktop?  Linux or Windows? > I > What part of the fact that Linux *still* doesn't directly compete with  C > Windows as a desktop OS (though it's coming closer and closer to  5 > becoming a competitor) has managed to escape you?     @ It competes as much as any non-commercial product can be said toA compete.  All of the major distributions offer all the same tools @ as Windows and include a desktop installation option.  Linuxoids> spend most of their time and breath talking about how they are the alternative to Windows.     G >                                                   And what relevance  I > does Linux have to a specifically Web-based issue like this one in the   > first place?  D The issue was wether or not a handfull of squeeky wheels could forceF web content providers to stop writing code specific to Windows.  LinuxD is more than a handful/  It is hundreds of thousands if not millionsI of anti-Windows users.  And their impact on Microsoft has been negligible  at best.   > G > Linux is still basically a 'techie' OS with a small (though growing)  K > cadre of early non-techie adopters which some distributions are catering   > to.     C Bull.  Linux stopped being "techie" at least as far back as the the D first serious RedHat offering.  And maybe before that.  Ygdrasil hadA a "pop it in the drive" nearly automatic install.  Today you have D even more simple "just boot me" installs.  Maybe you need to get outE more.  There are Linux desktop installs that are easier, require less 9 interaction and even require less knowledge than Windows.   6 >     By contrast, Firefox is definitely mainstream:    C It won't be mainstream till it comes already installed in a desktop : system.  Until then it is just another third party add-on.  H >                                                     fully competitive G > with IE and often superior, but without IE's glass jaws (and even if  D > Firefox has some of its own, until the hacking community actually H > attacks them with the ferocity it demonstrates toward IE Firefox will . > remain a significantly safer option to use).  H And as long as web content providers continue to specificly target their1 web sites at IE it will continue to be a wannabe.    >  >>   >>  G >>>       (the perception of an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut of a few  J >>>years ago comes to mind:  that perception didn't just fade away on its I >>>own, nor was the fade pushed by corporate interests - even IBM was on  F >>>board at the time, and Sun was only temporizing rather than in its  >>>current full-attack mode).  >>   >>  9 >> Bad example.  Itanic was a mistake from the beginning.  > G > And IE wasn't?  Perhaps you need to study browser history a bit more  
 > closely.  I Don't understand that one.  IE was just another browser in the beginning. E Except it had the backing of the most powerful desktop OS inthe world G and was integrated and automatically installed.  It worked just as well I as any other browser.  It even had it's ancestery deep int he same roots. F It was never the outsider so it always had the upper hand.  Itanic wasG the outsider from the beginning when it was made blatantly obvious that H it was not going to be compatable with it's predecessor.  If IE had beenH written to use some other presentation language than HTML, then it wouldH have failed and been just like the Itanic.  But at this point, IE is theF "industry standard" and it doesn't matter if they handle W3C code just' find, all the others are the outsiders.    > G > The main difference between IE and Itanic was Microsoft's ability to  J > leverage its OS dominance (plus its 'integration' of IE with the OS) to / > get IE into virtually every PC user's system.  > H > Let's consider ourselves fortunate that it was not feasible to bundle  > Itanic into every IA32 chip.  C True.  If the Itanic had not been totally incompatable with the x86 4 family it probably would have been a raging success.   >  > ...  > K >>>Web browsing is a situation where  1) a large percentage of individuals  ' >>>have a free choice in what to use,    >>   >>   >> No, they don't. > K > I guess you have difficulty appreciating the difference between 'a large  H > percentage' and 'a vast majority' - though of course you haven't even < > managed to refute that latter and much stronger statement. > K > Over 10% of Web accesses *already* come from Firefox, plus a few percent  ( > more from other non-IE alternatives.    A Read what I said,  How many come from home and how many come from C business.  Like it or not, business is still where the money is and E business continues to dictate what will be the standard.  Sadly, even G when said business is heavily reliant on home users, like a university.   I >                                      And that's only an absolute lower  G > bound on the percentage of people with the option to dump IE:  given  I > human ignorance and laziness, suggesting that the actual percentage is  C > not far higher (even if which side of 50% is not clear) is silly.  > ; >>    What they use (outside of their house) is dictated by I >> corporate policy on the part of both the browser and the content side.  > J > Even in cases where this is true (and of course not all businesses have N > any such policy), some businesses have already opted for alternatives to IE.  C I don't have numbers to refute you. I do know that if you count the D government in the catagory of business systems the number with a "noB rogue programs" rule is extremely high and going higher every day.C Nice idea if it's true, but, sadly, that has not been my experince. F Like many people who post here have alredy said numeroud times, I findF more and more sites where non-IE browsers just don't work at all or ifG they do, they perform so bad as to be unusable.  I can not think of any H (OK, there used to be one site, but I don't think it is still around and= it was deliberate) where other browsers work but IE does not.    >  > ...  > H >> If the sites you have to access (we're not talking about google, ebay8 >> or yahoo) only work with IE, then you have to use IE. > G > You have yet to demonstrate that any significant percentage of sites  K > that any major percentage of users 'have to access' 'only work with IE'.  J >   And since in my own experience that assertion is complete rubbish, at @ > least *some* kind of substantiation would seem to be required.  I Don't know how to prove it to you.  Everyone here at this University must H use IE to get the job done.  The web based mailer fails often with otherH browsers.  The frontend to all our Oracle stuff (school records, grades,F classlists)  fails often with other browsers.  The employee time inputC system does not work with anything but IE.  None of this is locally D written, we use a package provided by a company that sells this sameG package to lot's of people.  What can I tell you?  You have been lucky. A But my point was that this is a (somewhat) recent development the F standard browser here used to be Netscape and support was "officially"B provided for things like Opera and Mozilla.  Today, IE is the onlyD supported browser at the University. If you have a problem accessingC anything provided by the Universities web pages (not to include the C web server in my department) the forst corrective action offered is B "Use IE."  If it doesn't work with IE then and only then will they even investigate the problem.    >  >    Most people will E >> not want to have to jump back and forth between different browsers E >> depending on which site they visit.  And we won;t even go into the E >> potential problems one can create by installing one of these other  >> browsers. > D > Why not?  Because you can't document them?  I have encountered no 7 > side-effects whatsoever from my Firefox installation.  > ; >>   I used to be a big supporter of Opera.  Until it broke D >> MS updates :-( leaving me with a vulnerable machine that couldn'tH >> be fixed without a reinstall because no matter what I did I could notJ >> make IE my default browser again in order for MS updates to work again. > F > I've certainly had no problem updating without making IE my default K > browser (with Firefox as the default), but given my trust in Microsoft I  G > update by manually firing up IE to visit the update site rather than  K > automatically so I suppose that could make a difference.  That, in fact,  : > is the *only* situation is which I ever use IE any more. >  > ...  > H >>>IE isn't likely to disappear, of course.  But its days as a de facto J >>>standard may well already be fading or gone, with what we're currently J >>>seeing just reflecting the fact that updating *existing* sites to meet L >>>the real standards isn't that high a priority (given that other browsers J >>>don't seem to be having that much difficulty dealing with them anyway). >>   >>  M >> It has never been BG's desire to abide by standards.  I see  no reason why M >> that would change as long as he is on top.  And I see no likelihood of his  >> being toppled anytime soon. > H > So what?  BG isn't the one making decisions on how to structure sites H > around the Web:  the most he can do is try to entice those who are to @ > use non-standard techniques, and that practice is fading fast.   Keep telling yourself that.    > I > He may have had a chance to smother Java back in its infancy, in which  H > case ActiveX might have held a firmer grip on the industry.  But that K > opportunity is long gone - and now no Web site designer *needs* anything  $ > non-standard that IE has to offer.  D That's right.  And  no Web site designer needs Java either.  But theE web is loaded with it.  Just because they don't have to write to MS's + standard doesn't mean they aren't doing it.   G Like I said, I would love to see MS dry up and blow away.  But I am not E going to hold my breath waiting for it. And I am not going to do what E one person suggested and install a version of Windows without IE even 	 included.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:42:02 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...).. G Message-ID: <O8KdnRrif94RrSXenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:? > In article <seKdnZwmQP1shiXeRVn-jQ@metrocastcablevision.com>, - > 	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  >  >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>...  >> >>C >>>       "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot B >>>        change, the courage to change the things I can, and the? >>>        wisdom to know the difference. " - Reinhold Niebuhr   >>J >>The final phrase being the crux of the matter in this case.  Especially H >>with a Web-based issue like this one, it's surprising how many people F >>still feel that individuals can't come together and actually affect 	 >>events   >  > C > How many Linux users are there worldwide?  Heck, they even have a B > marketing branch (which is more than VMS has, but that's another9 > story).  Who is winning the desktop?  Linux or Windows?   G What part of the fact that Linux *still* doesn't directly compete with  A Windows as a desktop OS (though it's coming closer and closer to  F becoming a competitor) has managed to escape you?  And what relevance G does Linux have to a specifically Web-based issue like this one in the   first place?  E Linux is still basically a 'techie' OS with a small (though growing)  I cadre of early non-techie adopters which some distributions are catering  G to.  By contrast, Firefox is definitely mainstream:  fully competitive  E with IE and often superior, but without IE's glass jaws (and even if  B Firefox has some of its own, until the hacking community actually F attacks them with the ferocity it demonstrates toward IE Firefox will , remain a significantly safer option to use).   >  > F >>       (the perception of an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut of a few I >>years ago comes to mind:  that perception didn't just fade away on its  H >>own, nor was the fade pushed by corporate interests - even IBM was on E >>board at the time, and Sun was only temporizing rather than in its   >>current full-attack mode). >  > 8 > Bad example.  Itanic was a mistake from the beginning.  E And IE wasn't?  Perhaps you need to study browser history a bit more   closely.  E The main difference between IE and Itanic was Microsoft's ability to  H leverage its OS dominance (plus its 'integration' of IE with the OS) to - get IE into virtually every PC user's system.   F Let's consider ourselves fortunate that it was not feasible to bundle  Itanic into every IA32 chip.   ...   J >>Web browsing is a situation where  1) a large percentage of individuals & >>have a free choice in what to use,   >  >  > No, they don't.   I I guess you have difficulty appreciating the difference between 'a large  F percentage' and 'a vast majority' - though of course you haven't even : managed to refute that latter and much stronger statement.  I Over 10% of Web accesses *already* come from Firefox, plus a few percent  H more from other non-IE alternatives.  And that's only an absolute lower E bound on the percentage of people with the option to dump IE:  given  G human ignorance and laziness, suggesting that the actual percentage is  A not far higher (even if which side of 50% is not clear) is silly.   8    What they use (outside of their house) is dictated byH > corporate policy on the part of both the browser and the content side.  H Even in cases where this is true (and of course not all businesses have L any such policy), some businesses have already opted for alternatives to IE.   ...   G > If the sites you have to access (we're not talking about google, ebay 7 > or yahoo) only work with IE, then you have to use IE.   E You have yet to demonstrate that any significant percentage of sites  I that any major percentage of users 'have to access' 'only work with IE'.  H   And since in my own experience that assertion is complete rubbish, at > least *some* kind of substantiation would seem to be required.      Most people will D > not want to have to jump back and forth between different browsersD > depending on which site they visit.  And we won;t even go into theD > potential problems one can create by installing one of these other > browsers.   B Why not?  Because you can't document them?  I have encountered no 5 side-effects whatsoever from my Firefox installation.   8   I used to be a big supporter of Opera.  Until it brokeC > MS updates :-( leaving me with a vulnerable machine that couldn't G > be fixed without a reinstall because no matter what I did I could not I > make IE my default browser again in order for MS updates to work again.   D I've certainly had no problem updating without making IE my default I browser (with Firefox as the default), but given my trust in Microsoft I  E update by manually firing up IE to visit the update site rather than  I automatically so I suppose that could make a difference.  That, in fact,  8 is the *only* situation is which I ever use IE any more.   ...   G >>IE isn't likely to disappear, of course.  But its days as a de facto  I >>standard may well already be fading or gone, with what we're currently  I >>seeing just reflecting the fact that updating *existing* sites to meet  K >>the real standards isn't that high a priority (given that other browsers  I >>don't seem to be having that much difficulty dealing with them anyway).  >  > L > It has never been BG's desire to abide by standards.  I see  no reason whyL > that would change as long as he is on top.  And I see no likelihood of his > being toppled anytime soon.   F So what?  BG isn't the one making decisions on how to structure sites F around the Web:  the most he can do is try to entice those who are to > use non-standard techniques, and that practice is fading fast.  G He may have had a chance to smother Java back in its infancy, in which  F case ActiveX might have held a firmer grip on the industry.  But that I opportunity is long gone - and now no Web site designer *needs* anything  " non-standard that IE has to offer.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 22:13:31 -0500 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...).. G Message-ID: <v4GdnSUgd_r9ByXenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:I > In article <O8KdnRrif94RrSXenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com>, - > 	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  >  >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>@ >>>In article <seKdnZwmQP1shiXeRVn-jQ@metrocastcablevision.com>,. >>>	Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >>>  >>>  >>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> >>>>...  >>>> >>>> >>>>D >>>>>      "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannotC >>>>>       change, the courage to change the things I can, and the @ >>>>>       wisdom to know the difference. " - Reinhold Niebuhr  >>>>L >>>>The final phrase being the crux of the matter in this case.  Especially J >>>>with a Web-based issue like this one, it's surprising how many people H >>>>still feel that individuals can't come together and actually affect  >>>>events   >>>  >>> D >>>How many Linux users are there worldwide?  Heck, they even have aC >>>marketing branch (which is more than VMS has, but that's another : >>>story).  Who is winning the desktop?  Linux or Windows? >>I >>What part of the fact that Linux *still* doesn't directly compete with  C >>Windows as a desktop OS (though it's coming closer and closer to  5 >>becoming a competitor) has managed to escape you?    >  > B > It competes as much as any non-commercial product can be said to
 > compete.   Bzzzzzzt!  Wrong answer!  H The problem is that there's a major difference between compatibility in E underlying OSs and compatibility at the application level.  Browsers  E confront the latter challenge and by and large surmount it (at least  H when running on the same underlying OS), whereas the only way Linux can = even begin to offer *real* compatibility with Windows is via  G intermediaries such as Wine - and even that addresses only application  G binary interface issues rather than, say, driver compatibility (though  H for network drivers a Linux wrapper has recently appeared that at least   starts to address that problem).  E So the 'non-commercial' Firefox can compete directly with IE in ways  I that are pretty much impossible for any non-Windows OS to use to compete  6 with Windows itself:  it's the difference between the G incestuously-connected infrastructure dependencies that surround an OS  G and the far less challenging standards issues that apply to individual   applications like browsers.   I To look at it another way, third-party application and driver developers  F have to go considerably out of their way to get their products to run H *at all* on Linux, while (at least where the desktop is concerned) they I don't *have* a product unless it runs on Windows:  is it any wonder that  G Linux can't offer nearly the richness in desktop options (or often the  C completeness of implementation even where somewhat similar options   exist) that Windows can?  E By contrast, Web designers (especially these days) have to go out of  I their way to make a site that *doesn't* work as well with other browsers  E as it does with IE - and if they nonetheless manage to do so, unless  F they've depended heavily upon some IE-specific feature like ActiveX a 1 small amount of tweaking can rectify the problem.   :    All of the major distributions offer all the same toolsB > as Windows and include a desktop installation option.  Linuxoids@ > spend most of their time and breath talking about how they are > the alternative to Windows.     E And are about as credible as the U.S. Green party is when fielding a  H presidential candidate:  leaving aside any debate about whether they're F offering something better, the simple fact is that far too few people > are paying attention for them to prevail (at least as of yet).   >  > G >>                                                  And what relevance  I >>does Linux have to a specifically Web-based issue like this one in the   >>first place? >  > F > The issue was wether or not a handfull of squeeky wheels could forceA > web content providers to stop writing code specific to Windows.   G Wrong again.  The original contention to which you responded was "Some  I of the solution to that is for every user that has a problem to complain  G to the webmaster or whoever.  Enough squeeky[sic] wheels and some lube   may become available."  F Your responses since then indicate that you believe that the class of G users who experience such problems includes *most* non-IE users (i.e.,  E something like 10% of *all* users, in marked contrast to 'a handfull  H [sic] of squeeky[sic] wheels').  That's *a lot* of potential complaints.      LinuxF > is more than a handful/  It is hundreds of thousands if not millionsK > of anti-Windows users.  And their impact on Microsoft has been negligible 
 > at best.  F Actually, Microsoft is extremely concerned about Linux - though their C concern has until recently centered upon the inroads that Linux is  @ making into their server business rather than the desktop arena.  H But sending Steve Balmer and Bill Gates around the world dangling sweet F deals to try to convince municipalities not to convert to open-source I OSs became a recurring theme during 2005:  Linux may not *yet* have made  C significant inroads into the Windows desktop market, but Microsoft  / certainly appears worried that it may start to.    >  > G >>Linux is still basically a 'techie' OS with a small (though growing)  K >>cadre of early non-techie adopters which some distributions are catering   >>to.    >  > E > Bull.  Linux stopped being "techie" at least as far back as the the F > first serious RedHat offering.  And maybe before that.  Ygdrasil hadC > a "pop it in the drive" nearly automatic install.  Today you have F > even more simple "just boot me" installs.  Maybe you need to get outG > more.  There are Linux desktop installs that are easier, require less ; > interaction and even require less knowledge than Windows.   F An OS doesn't have to be difficult to be 'techie':  it just has to be D *different* enough that none of the standard support infrastructure , applies (and hence people are on their own).  C Different (and fewer) applications, different (and fewer) hardware  = options, different (and *vastly* fewer) support people (your  H brother-in-law may well be able to help you with a Windows problem, but H what's the probability that he'll be able to help with a Linux problem? -   he probably couldn't even help with a Mac).   F But your response here is quintessentially techie ("Hey, *I* can deal F with it just as easily as with Windows!"):  perhaps *you* need to get 	 out more.    >  > 6 >>    By contrast, Firefox is definitely mainstream:   >  > E > It won't be mainstream till it comes already installed in a desktop 	 > system.   I Dell is beginning to do precisely that, starting in the U.K. - guess you  
 missed it.  4    Until then it is just another third party add-on. >  > H >>                                                    fully competitive G >>with IE and often superior, but without IE's glass jaws (and even if  D >>Firefox has some of its own, until the hacking community actually H >>attacks them with the ferocity it demonstrates toward IE Firefox will . >>remain a significantly safer option to use). >  > J > And as long as web content providers continue to specificly target their3 > web sites at IE it will continue to be a wannabe.   I You keep saying that, but have already admitted that you have no figures  I to back up the implication that non-IE browsers are at any significantly  E general disadvantage.  So repeating it just constitutes more hot air.    >  >  >>> G >>>>      (the perception of an unstoppable Itanic juggernaut of a few  K >>>>years ago comes to mind:  that perception didn't just fade away on its  J >>>>own, nor was the fade pushed by corporate interests - even IBM was on G >>>>board at the time, and Sun was only temporizing rather than in its   >>>>current full-attack mode). >>>  >>> 9 >>>Bad example.  Itanic was a mistake from the beginning.  >>G >>And IE wasn't?  Perhaps you need to study browser history a bit more  
 >>closely. >  > K > Don't understand that one.  IE was just another browser in the beginning.   F No - it was Microsoft's belated attempt to catch up with and corral a ; burgeoning market whose inception it had completely missed.   G > Except it had the backing of the most powerful desktop OS inthe world I > and was integrated and automatically installed.  It worked just as well  > as any other browser.   F Er, no yet again:  not by any stretch of the imagination.  As I said, ; you need to firm up your historical knowledge in this area.   5    It even had it's ancestery deep int he same roots. < > It was never the outsider so it always had the upper hand.  G Wrong again (this is getting tiresome).  It began life as the outsider  G to a well-established Netscape browser, and only managed to muscle its  H way into dominance by being bundled with the OS that virtually everyone  used.   
    Itanic was I > the outsider from the beginning when it was made blatantly obvious that : > it was not going to be compatable with it's predecessor.  I Au contraire:  the claim 'from the beginning' was that Itanic *would* be  G compatible (upwardly, of course) with IA32.  But the execution in that  E area sucked ('compatible' but at only a small fraction of IA32 speed   just didn't cut it).      If IE had been J > written to use some other presentation language than HTML, then it would, > have failed and been just like the Itanic.  ? IE was nominally upward-compatible with HTML in a not entirely  G dissimilar manner to Itanic's nominal upward-compatibility w.r.t. IA32  A (ActiveX being one of IE's more major incompatible 'extensions').    ...       None of this is locallyF > written, we use a package provided by a company that sells this same > package to lot's of people.   E In other words, your entire argument is based upon experience with a  G single package (God only knows how old, let alone how commonly-used in  E the rest of the world) that doesn't happen to play nicely with other  	 browsers?    ...   H >>So what?  BG isn't the one making decisions on how to structure sites H >>around the Web:  the most he can do is try to entice those who are to @ >>use non-standard techniques, and that practice is fading fast. >  >  > Keep telling yourself that.   H Is that adolescent come-back supposed to be am effective substitute for & something containing actual substance?   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:49:10 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> Y Subject: Re: OT: Mozilla/Firefox (was:Re: Windoze ends year with a major cert ...) ...).. , Message-ID: <43B8BE4C.4C768028@teksavvy.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:, > How many Linux users are there worldwide?   C How many mobile handsets are there worldwide ? These do not support H javascript. And they do not support fancy HTML. The stuff goes through a@ gateway that tries to extract only information from the html and$ compress it to the handset into WML.  F Ironic that it is faster for me to access Air Canada information on myE handset view AC's WAP pages than to go through their javascript laden B pages full of errors which don't work half the time.  WAP was born) because of abuses in HTML and Javascript.   E The AC web site is even more stupid: some programme probably flaunted H his ability to validate cities from within javascript. So this site letsE you enter only cities served by actual AC flights. So even though Air G Canada may publisyh fares from Montreal to Cairns and its computer back E end fully capable of spitting out the schedules and fares, the stupid E web page prevents you from entering "Cairns" in the destination city.   H To me, a lot of the web seems to have been done by pre-pubescent windowsF weenies trying to prove their capabilities instead of designing a site that works.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:38:28 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>0 Subject: Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console+ Message-ID: <43B87604.1075220E@comcast.net>    Schnootling wrote: >  > Hi Folks,  >  > Quick question: D > I've got a failing monitor and a healthy VT420 (powers up and saysD > "VT420 OK"). The monitor is attached to the monitor slot/plug. The/ > VT420 is attached to the COM-1/Serial-1 plug.  > F > 1) I powered up VT420. Verified, several times, that VT420 is set to > 9600 8N1. - > 2) I did a SET CONSOLE SERIAL at SRM prompt > > 3) and BOOTed. System still tried to use monitor as console.G > 4) I pressed the VT420's Enter/Return key a lot more than a couple of  > times. > D > Should I (have to) unhook the monitor to get the system to use the > VT420 as a system console ?    I wouldn't think so.  F Other posters have proposed all the "usual suspects". Just want to add another:  D I don't recall which Alpha you have; however, I've seen some of themG which may ignore the CONSOLE variable and consider the presence/absence = of a keybaord at a higher priority than the CONSOLE variable.   D So, just to underscore another poster's suggestion: if a keyboard isH connected to the Alpha, make sure CONSOLE is set to "serial", then powerH down the machine, unplug the keyboard, and make sure at least 30 secondsA have elapsed since power down before attempting to power back up.    Just a thought...   H Also, check that he VT420 is set to communicate over the MMJ port you'reC trying to use. VT420 is a "dual session" terminal in that it can be E setup to run two separate and individual "sessions", one over each of D its MMJ ports, or a single session using one MMJ port for comm., the either for a local printer.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jan 2006 16:58:38 -0800 . From: "Schnootling" <chuckmoore55@hotmail.com>0 Subject: Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System ConsoleC Message-ID: <1136163518.608442.136740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Hello Hans,   E I only noticed 2 ports for the VT420: (as seen facing the rear of the  VT420) port 1 - the right-hand one.A port 2 - the left-hand one. also has a printer symbol next to it.     I've tried both with no success.  C By the way, I must be doing something wrong, as I did the following F (with the VT420 powered up on the Alpha serial port 1 and then powered* up on serial port 2) and nothing happened:/ 1) SHOW CONSOLE - verified it was set to SERIAL = 2) SHOW BOOT_RESET - verified it was set to ON  (there was no  TRUE/FALSE value)  3) did an INIT= 4) and the system booted, put a 1-line message on the monitor D ("Alphaserver 4100 Console V6.0-4 ..."), waited for about 2 minutes,G 5) during which I walked over to the VT420 and pressed the ENTER/Return C key several times (and verified the 9600 8N1 settings and reset the ? communications and reset the sessions and verified the 9600 8N1 @ settings and pressend the Enter/Return key several score times),8 5) then (it seemed to me) the Alpha chose the PC monitor- 6) and displayed the multiple HP-logo screen.   F Alpha 4100 serial/parallel ports: (as seen facing the rear of the box)   |--1--|  |--Parallel--|  |--2--|  |--SerialSomething--|  E ( I got this info from the small information plate on the back of the  Alpha.)   G Again, the VT420 powers up with a "VT420 OK" message. Now, I do want to ? use the VT420, but I'd be happy with the PC monitor as a system B console. The monitor seems to work alright with the SRM prompt. It? (Epson VGA) just gets squirrely when VMS/DecWindows takes over.   % Oh well, back to the experimentation,  Chuck   G P.S. I hope (after getting  TCP/IP configured) to hook it up to my home  router later this week. G P.P.S. And, I hope my LA75 (system printer) arrives later this week, as  well.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 Jan 2006 20:54:11 -0800 . From: "Schnootling" <chuckmoore55@hotmail.com>0 Subject: Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System ConsoleB Message-ID: <1136177651.272118.24100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Hello David,  D I went into the VT420's setup mode and saw that amongst other things# the following settings were in use:  S1=COMM1 VT400 mode, 7 bit controls 9600 8N1 VT420 ID     I then did the following: B 1) BOOTed without keyboard attached (i.e. POWER OFF+ON) without 30 second wait 5 2) the Alpha used the PC monitor instead of the VT420 D 3) Did an INIT without a keyboard (i.e. type in INIT then disconnect	 keyboard) F 4) and I got the message "Alphaserver 4100 Console..." ontop of a blue screenE 5) and the system seemed to wait for about 1 minute before displaying  the HP-logo(s). ; 6) I then came back upstairs and saw David's suggestion and 3 7) POWERED OFF the Alpha for a good 2 minutes while 9 8) taking OFF the monitor, keyboard, and mouse and then I  10) POWERED ON the Alpha and? 11) waited until all the chattering, and whirring of disks, and  blinking of lights was done - 12) and pushed Enter/Return keys (many times) E 13) toggled the VT420 to 8 bit control mode (don't know what it does, / but I'm was getting tired of nothing happening) 5 14) and pushed Enter/Return (several gazillion times)  15) turned OFF the VT420 and0 16) plugged the monitor, mouse, and keyboard and3 17) saw the omnipresent (albeit blurry) HP logo(s). E 18) and sighed. I bet the HP logo(s) would come up even if there were 	 NO power.   7 I give up. I want to PROGRAM my VT420, not develop more F ergonomically-efficient ways to turn it on or change its settings. I'm6 gonna get me another used monitor and try it that way.  % Thanks everyone for your suggestions, @ Chuck (lead character in the Chronicles of Alphia: The Line, The Switch, and The Keyboard)    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 23:21:35 -0600 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>0 Subject: Re: Using VT420 as Alpha System Console+ Message-ID: <43B8B85F.D70ADBD2@comcast.net>    Schnootling wrote: >  > Hello David, > F > I went into the VT420's setup mode and saw that amongst other things% > the following settings were in use: 
 > S1=COMM1 > VT400 mode, 7 bit controls
 > 9600 8N1
 > VT420 ID >  > I then did the following: D > 1) BOOTed without keyboard attached (i.e. POWER OFF+ON) without 30
 > second wait 7 > 2) the Alpha used the PC monitor instead of the VT420 F > 3) Did an INIT without a keyboard (i.e. type in INIT then disconnect > keyboard) H > 4) and I got the message "Alphaserver 4100 Console..." ontop of a blue > screenG > 5) and the system seemed to wait for about 1 minute before displaying  > the HP-logo(s). = > 6) I then came back upstairs and saw David's suggestion and 5 > 7) POWERED OFF the Alpha for a good 2 minutes while ; > 8) taking OFF the monitor, keyboard, and mouse and then I  > 10) POWERED ON the Alpha andA > 11) waited until all the chattering, and whirring of disks, and  > blinking of lights was done / > 12) and pushed Enter/Return keys (many times) G > 13) toggled the VT420 to 8 bit control mode (don't know what it does, 1 > but I'm was getting tired of nothing happening) 7 > 14) and pushed Enter/Return (several gazillion times)  > 15) turned OFF the VT420 and2 > 16) plugged the monitor, mouse, and keyboard and5 > 17) saw the omnipresent (albeit blurry) HP logo(s). G > 18) and sighed. I bet the HP logo(s) would come up even if there were  > NO power.  > 9 > I give up. I want to PROGRAM my VT420, not develop more H > ergonomically-efficient ways to turn it on or change its settings. I'm8 > gonna get me another used monitor and try it that way. > ' > Thanks everyone for your suggestions, B > Chuck (lead character in the Chronicles of Alphia: The Line, The > Switch, and The Keyboard)   E O.k. The sequence of events above tells me one key piece of info.: It D looks like AUTO_ACTION is set to BOOT (maybe not, but that's what it looks like from here).  D Shutdown VMS, and at whatever the Alpha thinks is the console (whereB ever the "P00>>> " prompt appears - use the Alpha's keyboard if itH appears on the VGA, the VT420's keyboard if it appears on the terminal),
 tell it this:    P00>>> set AUTO_ACTION HALT    P00>>> init   + ...and see if that changes your fortunes...    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.003 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            )DxQk}	/g
߿ k"Gb_a>0]:&hDO@>E:~G>B܀tWlzHCxfD&+ɺZ#b+71"iφ4+-u>4+ǌUƿ*8uMiG{sK3ڻ"=m.l.7@cy4=ٷU}Z٥p\׫nx>sތfǭQAaVwW\Uh-?0gDKw1b<Y*.z+|Br;Ґ&	scF!ͣqhb1?LwNw1O*,bi/;Yhjc+
%Iow.G`LN|.{c/-ʷi8ϳ񥷍+ihF^G̍codt