3 ms·

"If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning." Based on this sentence, I get the feeling you don't appreciate the

"If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning." Based on this sentence, I get the feeling you don't appreciate the value of web standards? If Microsoft wants to be taken seriously ever again (they had 10+ years to make that effort with IE before they lost the browser war) all they need to do is render pages correctly, not in their own special way. That also means not inventing special-to-Microsoft codes. Microsoft has a long record of screwing the greater community for their own self-interest. For example, sabotaging Java.

Chronic31 12y ago
Your last sentence describes Google.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  Absolutely correct. We should be trusting neither.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  I thoroughly disagree. Net Neutrality, today, is case in point. Until Chrome came along, Firefox was going it alone against IE. Until Google Fiber came along, we all had less than 10Mb downloads for $80/month. There's much, much more. Pick better battles. Google is not your enemy.
  - girvo 12y ago
    A company can achieve good things, and still be an enemy. There are other examples of unsavoury things Google has done as well. That said, I think applying morality to a company is silly; despite what the law may say, I'll never consider a corporation a person. It's a collection of people, and people can do good and bad things.
  - BuckRogers 12y ago
    That's suggestive that Google is our friend, which it is not. It's a for-profit entity, thus just as much as our convenient friend as any other and in general an enemy whose sole purpose is to separate you from your money. Don't get it twisted any other way. If you're looking for friends, pick a non-profit.
  - indians_pro 12y ago
    lol people like you are going to be happy when in a decade, everyone is going to be wearing google glasses, browsing through google chrome, having a google fiber internet connection, and 'renting' self-driving google cars. Cameras everywhere, control of the source internet, control of the browser, and I bet through some magic prominent universities decide that Go is the perfect language to teach beginners, over Python/C++/others- and start issuing free chromebooks to students. Just look at how they've been fucking up google voice to drive users to Hangouts to get more control. Look at how sometimes, Hangouts randomly doesn't give you notifications of new messages, so that you're kept on your toes and keep checking your mobile frequently. Look at how google maps absolutely _degrades_ and the 'famed' UI starts to look retarded when you turn off 'Location sharing'. Haha, google is definitely going to have the last laugh. Edward Snowden must be crying somewhere right now. There's going to be a day, when your 3 months old search for 'google services open source alternatives' gets you flagged as disqualified to being hired in Google/(maybe) other companies. And it's not going to stop. Google is going to keep getting bigger and bigger, keep growing tentacles, and keep getting more and more in control, and omniscient. I wonder how the great hackers of ages past allowed the whole technology industry to come to this, to let the situation become so bad. There should have been dozens of rms', but everyone kept quiet and rolled over. Now, it's near impossible to be free of google's touch when browsing the internet. EDIT : Hmm, downvoted without a comment. Looks like the 'crawlers' picked this up. I'm scared now.
    - throwaway3453 12y ago
      While I enjoyed your apocalyptic fiction, it's an indulgent fantasy. I really don't think you think this is true, and if you do, I'm very sad for you. Regards, -Google Search Spider #52837
- cm127 12y ago
  I wasn't aware of this. Source? Coincidentally, I'm not seeing results when I Google: google sabotage java.
  - giaour 12y ago
    Try googling "android"
Throwaway90283 12y ago
I should clarify, I think they should be strictly following web standards, and by doing so, they help to force those sites not following standards to update their code, or die. I don't want my browser using extra resources, and having extra features and menus to improve compatibility with someone's sloppy, hacked together website from the 90s. I'd rather that site appear broken because it's not following standards, and by doing so, it's encouraged to update, or be replaced by someone else. I believe this would allow for a smaller browser footprint, and we'd see better coded websites in the long run, instead of carrying them through. For example, we get a new IE browser, that follows standards to the T. If your site doesn't work in IE, it's not because "it's IE, use a real browser", it's because you didn't code your site properly. In the video they talk about how they would previously look at the top 10k websites and ensure compatibility, and now they're looking at millions and billions. They shouldn't look at anything. If Reddit doesn't work in the new version of IE, because they're not following standards, then so be it. Don't look at methods of relaxing those standards and bending the rules to get Reddit working. Leave it broken, and let the users apply pressure to Reddit because the site isn't working in IE. As I said above, they can't laugh off IE anymore, because it's not some dumb, outdated browser. Instead, it's following standards, so Reddit is broken, not IE. It would be the gold standard... in standards. You check to make sure your site works in IE, because if it does, then you coded it right. If your site displays fine in Firefox and Chrome, you don't really know if it's coded properly, or if they just held your hand to make it display correctly.

Chronic31 12y ago

Your last sentence describes Google.

anonbanker 12y ago
Absolutely correct. We should be trusting neither.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
I thoroughly disagree. Net Neutrality, today, is case in point. Until Chrome came along, Firefox was going it alone against IE. Until Google Fiber came along, we all had less than 10Mb downloads for $80/month. There's much, much more. Pick better battles. Google is not your enemy.
- girvo 12y ago
  A company can achieve good things, and still be an enemy. There are other examples of unsavoury things Google has done as well. That said, I think applying morality to a company is silly; despite what the law may say, I'll never consider a corporation a person. It's a collection of people, and people can do good and bad things.
- BuckRogers 12y ago
  That's suggestive that Google is our friend, which it is not. It's a for-profit entity, thus just as much as our convenient friend as any other and in general an enemy whose sole purpose is to separate you from your money. Don't get it twisted any other way. If you're looking for friends, pick a non-profit.
- indians_pro 12y ago
  lol people like you are going to be happy when in a decade, everyone is going to be wearing google glasses, browsing through google chrome, having a google fiber internet connection, and 'renting' self-driving google cars. Cameras everywhere, control of the source internet, control of the browser, and I bet through some magic prominent universities decide that Go is the perfect language to teach beginners, over Python/C++/others- and start issuing free chromebooks to students. Just look at how they've been fucking up google voice to drive users to Hangouts to get more control. Look at how sometimes, Hangouts randomly doesn't give you notifications of new messages, so that you're kept on your toes and keep checking your mobile frequently. Look at how google maps absolutely _degrades_ and the 'famed' UI starts to look retarded when you turn off 'Location sharing'. Haha, google is definitely going to have the last laugh. Edward Snowden must be crying somewhere right now. There's going to be a day, when your 3 months old search for 'google services open source alternatives' gets you flagged as disqualified to being hired in Google/(maybe) other companies. And it's not going to stop. Google is going to keep getting bigger and bigger, keep growing tentacles, and keep getting more and more in control, and omniscient. I wonder how the great hackers of ages past allowed the whole technology industry to come to this, to let the situation become so bad. There should have been dozens of rms', but everyone kept quiet and rolled over. Now, it's near impossible to be free of google's touch when browsing the internet. EDIT : Hmm, downvoted without a comment. Looks like the 'crawlers' picked this up. I'm scared now.
  - throwaway3453 12y ago
    While I enjoyed your apocalyptic fiction, it's an indulgent fantasy. I really don't think you think this is true, and if you do, I'm very sad for you. Regards, -Google Search Spider #52837
cm127 12y ago
I wasn't aware of this. Source? Coincidentally, I'm not seeing results when I Google: google sabotage java.
- giaour 12y ago
  Try googling "android"

Throwaway90283 12y ago

I should clarify, I think they should be strictly following web standards, and by doing so, they help to force those sites not following standards to update their code, or die. I don't want my browser using extra resources, and having extra features and menus to improve compatibility with someone's sloppy, hacked together website from the 90s. I'd rather that site appear broken because it's not following standards, and by doing so, it's encouraged to update, or be replaced by someone else. I believe this would allow for a smaller browser footprint, and we'd see better coded websites in the long run, instead of carrying them through. For example, we get a new IE browser, that follows standards to the T. If your site doesn't work in IE, it's not because "it's IE, use a real browser", it's because you didn't code your site properly. In the video they talk about how they would previously look at the top 10k websites and ensure compatibility, and now they're looking at millions and billions. They shouldn't look at anything. If Reddit doesn't work in the new version of IE, because they're not following standards, then so be it. Don't look at methods of relaxing those standards and bending the rules to get Reddit working. Leave it broken, and let the users apply pressure to Reddit because the site isn't working in IE. As I said above, they can't laugh off IE anymore, because it's not some dumb, outdated browser. Instead, it's following standards, so Reddit is broken, not IE. It would be the gold standard... in standards. You check to make sure your site works in IE, because if it does, then you coded it right. If your site displays fine in Firefox and Chrome, you don't really know if it's coded properly, or if they just held your hand to make it display correctly.