8 Jun
2001
8 Jun
'01
12:24
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