Not a good way to promote your Expo !!
Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser for LINUX and come standard with any Linux distrobution that use the Window Manager for KDE desktop (which to my understanding is also a defautl window manager - KDE that is). Running a "Linux World Expo" and then tell user and prospective attendees that they "must" use either IE4.5 or Netscape 4.5 later is like inviting someone to a party and telling them to call to let them know if they'll be comming, but refusing to give them the phone number when they ask for it. It doesn't make sense. And further more If you have used a web editor like "Frontpage" by Microsoft you're not using a web standards compliant web editor and that's would explain why many "LINUX" user may not attend. Just something to think about (and many Linux users have expressed their displeasure with the development - not a good endorsement for your Expo to be honest). Respectfully, Curtis Rey (Linux user who can't register via the web, and won't fax you a registration request) :) :) :). http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/register.shtml "Please note: In order to register on-line, you MUST be using Netscape 4.5 or later or Internet Explorer 4.5 or later. If you are not, please update your browser or register by Mail or Fax." A Linux site? Nope, running on Windows and probably made via your Frontpage standard. What happens when they decide to go MS IE only? "Ms IE 6 needed to view this site, please upgrade your browser"?
You know..between Craig Mundie being at O'Reilly's conference and Linuxworlds website being hosted on W2K..I think I will just skip both...screw them. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I can't figure out whether to be sad or angry :0 On Thursday 07 June 2001 06:56 pm, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
You know..between Craig Mundie being at O'Reilly's conference and Linuxworlds website being hosted on W2K..I think I will just skip both...screw them.
Curtis Rey wrote:
Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser for LINUX
Please stay with the truth: There is no such thing as a "default LINUX browser". konqueror is the default browser for KDE, nothing more and nothing less. Ralf
* Ralf Corsepius (corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de) [010607 20:14]: ->Curtis Rey wrote: ->> ->> Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? ->> Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, ->> kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser ->> for LINUX ->Please stay with the truth: There is no such thing as a "default ->LINUX browser". -> ->konqueror is the default browser for KDE, nothing more and nothing ->less. True. But I would think that a Linuxcentric event such as Linuxworld would let you enjoy using a good native browser such as Konqueror or Mozilla..or are we suppose to beleve as the U.K. Gov. does that no other browser but IE can do digital certificates and secure connections like IE or some God awful version of Nutscrape 4.X. I don't like the fact that the site is hosted on Windows 2000 either. What does that say about the care that the people who put this expo together took in thinging with their heads out of their ass? It's pretty much a slap in the face if you ask me. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius (corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de) [010607 20:14]: ->Curtis Rey wrote: ->> ->> Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? ->> Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, ->> kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser ->> for LINUX ->Please stay with the truth: There is no such thing as a "default ->LINUX browser". -> ->konqueror is the default browser for KDE, nothing more and nothing ->less.
True. But I would think that a Linuxcentric event such as Linuxworld would let you enjoy using a good native browser such as Konqueror or Mozilla..or are we suppose to beleve as the U.K. Gov. does that no other browser but IE can do digital certificates and secure connections like IE or some God awful version of Nutscrape 4.X.
I don't like the fact that the site is hosted on Windows 2000 either. What does that say about the care that the people who put this expo together took in thinging with their heads out of their ass? It's pretty much a slap in the face if you ask me.
Absolutely no disagreement, I only was trying to point out a "semi-true" spot in Rey's text, as I expect the people you are about to attack to start nit-picking on details if they can find anything "semi-true" in "open letter" like Rey's. Besides this detail, I was not intending to critize it as a whole and actually agree with most parts of it otherwise[1]. Ralf. [1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this particular problem is gone.
* Ralf Corsepius (corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de) [010608 00:48]: ->Absolutely no disagreement, -> ->I only was trying to point out a "semi-true" spot in Rey's text, as ->I expect the people you are about to attack to start nit-picking on ->details if they can find anything "semi-true" in "open letter" like ->Rey's. I know...and I sometime over react..I guess it's the pent up frustrations of an ex-OS/2 user in me that just gets really pissed off that I have found another environment that I like and this MS bullshit starts again. OS/2 users didn't have the mass backing that Linux enjoys..and I just want people to stick together so that we don't have this unsupported ( no games..commercial apps..etc..etc) shit happen to yet another environment that is way better then any MS crap. Make sense? ->[1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this ->particular problem is gone. It use to be able to have the user agent hardcoded into it so it would say it was IE 5.X or Netscape 4.X ... whatever the user wanted..but the KDE guys felt it would be better to put it as a site by site user string. Which A. Doesn't work and hasn't since they switched. B. Doesn't matter if the user wants one damn string vs. one for each site. Why can't it do both. I have talked at length with Waldo Bastian about it..and he said it was discussed for a while on the KDE lists. Most developers have this mistaken notion that Web Developers give a shite about supporting anyting but IE ...and they often bitch about supporting Netscape. Does anyone thing they will even know what Konqueror is 9-10 times..hell no. And I can never get the user agent to change what it sends out. I have specified a string for different sites...and when I get rejected..it says that Konqueror 5 is not supported. I think that it would be a good thing to let the KDE developers know that we want the hardcode feature back..I don't care if in webstatics it says I was a Windows 2000 user of IE...I just want to view websites. -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
[1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this particular problem is gone.
So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established status quo by becoming M$ emulator? If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word? I think that educating those that set up sites that not everyone uses NS or M$ browsers is the way to go. If they want to restrict access to a Linux expo to those people using Windows then let the failure of the show speak for itself. If those Linux companies etc., sponsoring the show haven't yet cottoned on I wonder what their support for future IDG ventures will be when they realise!
On Friday 08 June 2001 12:38 pm, you wrote:
On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
[1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this particular problem is gone.
So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established status quo by becoming M$ emulator?
If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word?
I think that educating those that set up sites that not everyone uses NS or M$ browsers is the way to go.
That reasoning was exactly why the Konqueror developers removed the option to globally pretend to be another browser. They wanted to give Konqueror it's own identity, and to have web designers work with it. Hopefully the irritation the users have to suffer in the meantime when trying to access crappy web sites will be worth it.
Terence McCarthy wrote: > > On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > [1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this > > particular problem is gone. > > So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established > status quo by becoming M$ emulator? No, IMO you should destinguish several topic here: 1. Servers/sites checking for certain browsers and refusing to talk to them. 2. Servers/sites using proprietary technology and browsers technically not being able to talk to them. 3. Underdeveloped clients/browsers which are technically not able to communicate with sites using advanced, but standard technology. I was only refering to case 1. above and meant it to be a work around to the servers' admins/designers inability to provide platform independent services. > If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be > next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word? Let me put it this way: You have the freedon not to use M$-Word, but if you need to use it for what reason ever, there is no way around "to playing catch-up with M$". IMO, there is nothing wrong with doing so as long as you have the freedom to choose. Things only become problematic if somebody is going to declare a proprietary file format/protocol/product to be standard, which means you won't have any freedom to choose. > I think that educating those that set up sites that not everyone uses NS or > M$ browsers is the way to go. ACK. Sites should not rely on any proprietary stuff, sites doing so are just poorly designed. > If they want to restrict access to a Linux expo to those people using Windows > then let the failure of the show speak for itself. IMO, wrt. two topics should be destinguished: * Using M$-technology. * Not having set up the site in a browser independed way. While I consider the first of these items to be counter-productive to the Linux community (It should not have happened) and sheds a certain light on the local organization (incompetence), the latter is an actual scandal. > If those Linux companies etc., sponsoring the show haven't yet cottoned on I > wonder what their support for future IDG ventures will be when they realise! Yep. Ralf
* Terence McCarthy (saki@cwcom.net) [010608 04:41]: ->On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote: -> ->> [1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this ->> particular problem is gone. -> ->So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established ->status quo by becoming M$ emulator? -> ->If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be ->next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word? Well, I would mention to you that my wife worked for Organic in San Francisco. They have done such sites as Macy's.com, Washington Mutual Bank's site, Chrysler, Bloomingdales, Bank of Montreal along with British Telecom ...and scores of other fortune 1000 sites. I can tell you from talking to the people in the design/web dev department that they wouldn't support Konqueror unless a customer paided them to do so. They support IE and make it work for Netscape because they have to. Many bitched and wished Netscape would just die already. Web Developers for the most part these days are damn near computer illiterate..they just make pretty pictures. It took Wells Fargo (my bank) almost 5 months to support Netscape 6 on their site..until a few days ago. It would reject you as having an unsupported browser. We can educate these people that Mozilla and Konqueror support the same things that IE does and that it works just great with ssl connections and will display 99% of what they code, but until then..to punish the users by not letting them have the choice whether to do it site by site or hardcode just one user agent into the browser smacks of "elite, I'm a computer geek and out to change the world..no matter what" thinking. It's just wrong. Users that want to use Linux w/ Konqueror for all their daily needs, yet can't because they get rejected on sites that we know damn well Konq can display is just wrong. It's about choice. If I choose to put an IE face mask onto Konq because it's less of a hassle for me for now..it's my choice. If you change the user agent for a certain site to IE because it works..WTF is the difference between that and having it just tell all sites that it's IE. The web stat's for the site you changed it for will still report IE..and we have gained nothing accept that we have to do it site by site which is a pain in the ass. Just my 1/2 awake 0.02 -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
Ben and others, I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in Netscape just because... So the site has already begun to help, if only in a small. All they have to do is check for responses. Feel free to say whatever :-). Matt -- "The only thing complex about Linux are the users themselves." On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Terence McCarthy (saki@cwcom.net) [010608 04:41]: ->On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote: -> ->> [1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this ->> particular problem is gone. -> ->So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established ->status quo by becoming M$ emulator? -> ->If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be ->next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word?
Well, I would mention to you that my wife worked for Organic in San Francisco. They have done such sites as Macy's.com, Washington Mutual Bank's site, Chrysler, Bloomingdales, Bank of Montreal along with British Telecom ...and scores of other fortune 1000 sites. I can tell you from talking to the people in the design/web dev department that they wouldn't support Konqueror unless a customer paided them to do so. They support IE and make it work for Netscape because they have to. Many bitched and wished Netscape would just die already. Web Developers for the most part these days are damn near computer illiterate..they just make pretty pictures. It took Wells Fargo (my bank) almost 5 months to support Netscape 6 on their site..until a few days ago. It would reject you as having an unsupported browser.
We can educate these people that Mozilla and Konqueror support the same things that IE does and that it works just great with ssl connections and will display 99% of what they code, but until then..to punish the users by not letting them have the choice whether to do it site by site or hardcode just one user agent into the browser smacks of "elite, I'm a computer geek and out to change the world..no matter what" thinking. It's just wrong. Users that want to use Linux w/ Konqueror for all their daily needs, yet can't because they get rejected on sites that we know damn well Konq can display is just wrong. It's about choice. If I choose to put an IE face mask onto Konq because it's less of a hassle for me for now..it's my choice. If you change the user agent for a certain site to IE because it works..WTF is the difference between that and having it just tell all sites that it's IE. The web stat's for the site you changed it for will still report IE..and we have gained nothing accept that we have to do it site by site which is a pain in the ass.
Just my 1/2 awake 0.02 -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
* StarTux (matthew@psychohorse.com) [010608 10:47]: ->Ben and others, -> ->I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are ->correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time ->to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in ->Netscape just because... -> Yes..it's true they don't have time to check out every browser, but my point is that why should they have to? They should just design it to a spec such as W3C or however they please and if the site doesn't work for the person viewing it with thing such as Konq..then it doesn't work, but if it does..GREAT. They should not query the browser for version and the deny what they don't know. I am rather harsh in my feelings about this. I think that they only browsers that should be supported (because for most part these all support most of the same things) are Mozilla 5.0 (including Netscape 6), IE 5.0 and up, Opera 5.0 and Konqueror. For the most part they all support pretty much the same stuff..not all..but mostly. I don't think that these crappy OLD 4.X browsers should even be supported..because if we keep doing it. There is no incentive for people to update their versions...so the web developers will still have to somewhat support them. This leaves 4 real browsers to support..if they can't do this. They should NOT develop websites...they should know about modern browsers. Regards, -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
W3C themselves will come out with new standards, and old browsers will not support these... But, how many sites would pass the W3C test? So far I have not found many...My own site goes bottom up on that test too, although its a crappy template that I am not able to change :-). Matt -- "The only thing complex about Linux are the users themselves." On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* StarTux (matthew@psychohorse.com) [010608 10:47]: ->Ben and others, -> ->I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are ->correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time ->to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in ->Netscape just because... ->
Yes..it's true they don't have time to check out every browser, but my point is that why should they have to? They should just design it to a spec such as W3C or however they please and if the site doesn't work for the person viewing it with thing such as Konq..then it doesn't work, but if it does..GREAT. They should not query the browser for version and the deny what they don't know. I am rather harsh in my feelings about this. I think that they only browsers that should be supported (because for most part these all support most of the same things) are Mozilla 5.0 (including Netscape 6), IE 5.0 and up, Opera 5.0 and Konqueror. For the most part they all support pretty much the same stuff..not all..but mostly.
I don't think that these crappy OLD 4.X browsers should even be supported..because if we keep doing it. There is no incentive for people to update their versions...so the web developers will still have to somewhat support them.
This leaves 4 real browsers to support..if they can't do this. They should NOT develop websites...they should know about modern browsers.
Regards, -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* StarTux (matthew@psychohorse.com) [010608 10:47]: ->Ben and others, -> ->I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are ->correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time ->to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in ->Netscape just because... ->
Yes..it's true they don't have time to check out every browser, but my point is that why should they have to? They should just design it to a spec such as W3C or however they please and if the site doesn't work for the person viewing it with thing such as Konq..then it doesn't work, but if it does..GREAT. They should not query the browser for version and the deny what they don't know.
I seem to recall that the big 'selling' feature of the WWW, and the internet for that matter, is interoperability based on standards. If the W3C publishes a standard for HTML x.x encoding, they should also publish a syntax checker for that standard, and a reference implementation of a renderer. (amaya?) IMHO, the browser-type header should be removed from the standard,, and replaced with a browser-capabilities string that refers ONLY to the version, and optional features of the standard spec itself. Maybe this will promote greater interoperability, and reduce the tendency towards browser-chauvinism that we seem to be experiencing. -- Rick Green "I have the heart of a little child, and the brain of a genius. ... and I keep them in a jar under my bed"
On Saturday 09 June 2001 11:26, Rick wrote:
I seem to recall that the big 'selling' feature of the WWW, and the internet for that matter, is interoperability based on standards. If the W3C publishes a standard for HTML x.x encoding, they should also publish a syntax checker for that standard, and a reference implementation of a renderer. (amaya?) IMHO, the browser-type header should be removed from the standard,, and replaced with a browser-capabilities string that refers ONLY to the version, and optional features of the standard spec itself. Maybe this will promote greater interoperability, and reduce the tendency towards browser-chauvinism that we seem to be experiencing.
Exactly right. If people / organizations would start blackballing these MSIE - only sites, maybe they'd be forced to start sticking with the standards. If someone made a Konqueror - only site, they should be blackballed too. If everyone stuck with the standards, then there would be no need to identify which browser is coming in. You'd only need to know the HTML version the browser was built for, in case maybe they're using an older browser. *************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 7.1 Professional KDE 2.0.1 KMail 1.1.99 Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ***************************************************
Rick Green wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* StarTux (matthew@psychohorse.com) [010608 10:47]: ->Ben and others, -> ->I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are ->correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time ->to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in ->Netscape just because... ->
Yes..it's true they don't have time to check out every browser, but my point is that why should they have to? They should just design it to a spec such as W3C or however they please and if the site doesn't work for the person viewing it with thing such as Konq..then it doesn't work, but if it does..GREAT. They should not query the browser for version and the deny what they don't know.
I seem to recall that the big 'selling' feature of the WWW, and the internet for that matter, is interoperability based on standards. If the W3C publishes a standard for HTML x.x encoding, they should also publish a syntax checker for that standard, and a reference implementation of a renderer. (amaya?) IMHO, the browser-type header should be removed from the standard,, and replaced with a browser-capabilities string that refers ONLY to the version, and optional features of the standard spec itself. Maybe this will promote greater interoperability, and reduce the tendency towards browser-chauvinism that we seem to be experiencing.
http://validator.w3.org/ There you go, and yes most sites fail. Matt
How long has your site been up? Not a bad start -not bad at all ! I'll keep my eyes open. Great job Matt ! :) Cheers. Curtis On Friday 08 June 2001 11:45 am, StarTux wrote:
Ben and others,
I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in Netscape just because...
So the site has already begun to help, if only in a small. All they have to do is check for responses.
Feel free to say whatever :-).
Matt
-- "The only thing complex about Linux are the users themselves."
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Terence McCarthy (saki@cwcom.net) [010608 04:41]: ->On Friday 08 June 2001 07:48, Ralf Corsepius wrote: -> ->> [1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this ->> particular problem is gone. -> ->So are you saying that Linux browsers should give in to the M$ established ->status quo by becoming M$ emulator? -> ->If you are, I think that this is a dangerous path to follow. What would be ->next, word processing packages always playing catch-up to M$ Word?
Well, I would mention to you that my wife worked for Organic in San Francisco. They have done such sites as Macy's.com, Washington Mutual Bank's site, Chrysler, Bloomingdales, Bank of Montreal along with British Telecom ...and scores of other fortune 1000 sites. I can tell you from talking to the people in the design/web dev department that they wouldn't support Konqueror unless a customer paided them to do so. They support IE and make it work for Netscape because they have to. Many bitched and wished Netscape would just die already. Web Developers for the most part these days are damn near computer illiterate..they just make pretty pictures. It took Wells Fargo (my bank) almost 5 months to support Netscape 6 on their site..until a few days ago. It would reject you as having an unsupported browser.
We can educate these people that Mozilla and Konqueror support the same things that IE does and that it works just great with ssl connections and will display 99% of what they code, but until then..to punish the users by not letting them have the choice whether to do it site by site or hardcode just one user agent into the browser smacks of "elite, I'm a computer geek and out to change the world..no matter what" thinking. It's just wrong. Users that want to use Linux w/ Konqueror for all their daily needs, yet can't because they get rejected on sites that we know damn well Konq can display is just wrong. It's about choice. If I choose to put an IE face mask onto Konq because it's less of a hassle for me for now..it's my choice. If you change the user agent for a certain site to IE because it works..WTF is the difference between that and having it just tell all sites that it's IE. The web stat's for the site you changed it for will still report IE..and we have gained nothing accept that we have to do it site by site which is a pain in the ass.
Just my 1/2 awake 0.02 -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Yes Ralf - your correct on the nit-picking point that I could set myself and the community up for by stating that Kongueror is the "default" browser. In hindsight I should said "native" perhaps in reference to Konqueror, and something like "commonly used" or "often preferred" in reference to Mozz (though given the fact this firm is evidently clueless and if one pops the SuSE CD and install "default" with X it does default to KDE and any link you click on opens Konqueror as a default - hence my assertion, however incorrect). But my real intent was to point out the lack of "understanding", if you will, related to a firm hired to market by IDG or more over, IDG's own internal marketing division in relation to placing perspective registree's in an awkward and erksome position by mandating they use a technology that is the foundation for much angst in the particular subset of clientele. Maybe, like Ben said, it's so much hot air. I have just been using Linux for just under a year and have grown very fond of the system. I would hate to see it go the way of OS/2 due to complacency. Anyway, I will endevour to be more meticulous in the future. Cheers, "Curits" (I do honestly prefer to have my 1st name used rather than the family name thanks :) ). On Friday 08 June 2001 02:48 am, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius (corsepiu@faw.uni-ulm.de) [010607 20:14]: ->Curtis Rey wrote: ->> ->> Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? ->> Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, ->> kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser ->> for LINUX ->Please stay with the truth: There is no such thing as a "default ->LINUX browser". -> ->konqueror is the default browser for KDE, nothing more and nothing ->less.
True. But I would think that a Linuxcentric event such as Linuxworld would let you enjoy using a good native browser such as Konqueror or Mozilla..or are we suppose to beleve as the U.K. Gov. does that no other browser but IE can do digital certificates and secure connections like IE or some God awful version of Nutscrape 4.X.
I don't like the fact that the site is hosted on Windows 2000 either. What does that say about the care that the people who put this expo together took in thinging with their heads out of their ass? It's pretty much a slap in the face if you ask me.
Absolutely no disagreement,
I only was trying to point out a "semi-true" spot in Rey's text, as I expect the people you are about to attack to start nit-picking on details if they can find anything "semi-true" in "open letter" like Rey's.
Besides this detail, I was not intending to critize it as a whole and actually agree with most parts of it otherwise[1].
Ralf.
[1] konqueror should learn to appear as NS, IE or Mozilla and this particular problem is gone.
Tell me, are going to argue symantices with me or realize the bigger issue. That being that they are mandating you to use IE 4.5 or better. IE anything runs like crap on Linux unless you tweak the hell out of it and then poorly at best. Rather than look at the deeper issue of hiring a marketing firm that is clueless to the audience they're focusing on and not understanding that they are using a non-compliant standard the excludes all but two browsers, you guys would rather argue symantics and show me that I made an error in your opinion and by god your gonna let me know! Ok sure. Dont want to offend anyone. Have fun at the conference? On Thursday 07 June 2001 07:25 pm, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Curtis Rey wrote:
Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser for LINUX
Please stay with the truth: There is no such thing as a "default LINUX browser".
konqueror is the default browser for KDE, nothing more and nothing less.
Ralf
Curtis,
Please don't be too offended but do the words "LINUX" mean anything to you? Or words like "Konquror and Mozilla (a completely netscape compliant browser, kinda like they develop for netscape)? Konqueror is the default web browser for LINUX and come standard with any Linux distrobution that
Actually Konqueror, isn't the "default" web browser for Linux - as much as I would like it to be. Many Linux users use either Netscape 4.x or Mozilla (and the hard core ones use Lynx). With RedHat's official blessing on the GNOME environment, KDE-dependant Konqueror will/has not become the standard quite yet. I personally use it for about 99% of my web browsing though (with .5% going to Netscape 4 when Konqi can't load a page, and .5% going to MSIE 5.5 when I happen to be using W2k or WinME).
use the Window Manager for KDE desktop (which to my understanding is also a defautl window manager - KDE that is). Running a "Linux World Expo" and
Same with KDE... KDE is the most popular, but there isn't a "default" window manager (or more precisely a desktop environment), since Linux really doesn't even have a GUI by itself. :-) KDE could be called the "defacto standard" at least, if RedHat would ever see the light and support KDE as their default just like SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake, Corel, et. al. do. -Tim "Being waaaay to picky about this post that makes very good points about LinuxWorld" -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ============== "Information Powered by Innovation" ==============
KDE could be called the "defacto standard" at least, if RedHat would ever see the light and support KDE as their default just like SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake, Corel, et. al. do.
I'd agree with that, but it does raise an interesting point. The fact Redhat shipped that awful GNOME crap for a year before it was ready, and the way they are still shipping the second best desktop system even now GNOME is fairly usable, has allowed other distros to jump in a grab some market. "Software Darwinism" I think it's called. Around here Redhat with GNOME is the primary Linux platform, but when those users see my anti-aliased fonts, Konqueror, Kmail, Knode, etc., they realise they are on an inferior distro. The trickle of people switching to KDE based desktops is becoming a noticable stream. I wonder how well SuSE or (in particular) Mandrake would be doing if Redhat hadn't made that daft decision?
participants (10)
-
Ben Rosenberg -
Bryan S. Tyson -
Curtis Rey -
Derek Fountain -
Matthew Johnson -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rick Green -
StarTux
-
Terence McCarthy -
Timothy R.Butler