Joe wrote about the article Sally posted...
> > http://www.inc.com/incmagazine/archives/18960601.html
> > No matter who wins the battle of the browsers, the rest of us are
> > likely to lose
> i just wanted to make a couple of comments on this article. for one,
> it is interesting how the only quotes coming out of w3c in the article
> are from jimbo. i won't comment on why this occurs, i'll let the
> reader guess.
Just another step in Jim Miller's attempt to antagonize every single
person in the whole world, living AND dead?
> second, i find it hard to believe that gates generates a buzz at mit.
> what are the students thinking?
He's got wealth and fame (heck, notoreity), and the world listens to
him, all thanks to application of technology. I'd say they're thinking
they all want that fame and wealth and ability to make the world listen
to them, too. Either that, or to see that Bill Gates really is nothing
so special after all. If you prick him, does he not bleed?
> i figured if anyone there were buzzing it would be the purist and
> anti-microshit bees wanting to sting billy to death like those scary
> african meanies we just heard about on npr.
Killing Bill Gates isn't the solution. He must suffer, and through
suffering find The Way on his own.
> third, isn't it interesting how this article is already slightly
> out-of-date? now, many are watching micro$oft as the de facto
> web-centered "standards setting" organization.
Including, as Rohit pointed out, a choreographed killing of Java, first
by turning it into a language (as opposed to an object model or virtual
machine), second my stripping its portability as a language by putting
in Win32 and Intel optimizations and curtailing its name, and now by
pushing a lot of Java's functionality into ActiveX components that can
be plugged into Visual Anything to run with IE 3.0 and on.
> next, marc's smugness about standards-related topics and his own
> hyper-hypocrisy is really irritating. he needs an attitude
> adjustment; any takers?
I'd love to go in there and rip him a new orifice. Marc had such an
opportunity, and through his own hubris and lack of technical
understanding, he bunked it up. He's actually got me not caring if
Microsoft uses all of its antitrust unfair practices against him.
He's another one who needs to suffer and find The Way.
> i love fred's quote about censuring netscape ("Meddle not in the
> affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with
This saying is at least as old as alt.warlords, right Rob?
> i wonder if this is the prevailing attitude within the ietf in general
> with all the recent stink about tlds and whatnot?
IETF is such a funny organization. I often wonder WHAT they're thinking.
> finally, the whole "the browser is the os" vs "the network is the
> computer" mottos are just a gas.
How about "the user is a moron"?
> i remember when people used to make fun of me for having an emacs
> running at about 10mb and slowing down a machine about as powerful as
> a pentium - but at least it does more for me than a browser, is
> completely extendible, and actually is only as big as it needs be.
We'll still laugh (or is it cry?) when it uses 300 meg of swap space... :)
> ie 3.0 deliverable is sitting at just over 10mb for 95, 8mb for nt,
> and 5.7mb for the mac?
My modem keeps timing out when I try to download ie 3.0 -- is this from
a new line of smart modems or something?
> (of course, the mac install without java is only 2.2mb - interesting,
Definitely. No reason why Java should be that big.
> likewise for netscape. if you'll note, last i checked, that though
> plug-ins and the like are delivered as dlls ("load-on-demand" ...
> yeah, right!), your default app footprint grows linearly with the
> number of plug-ins/activex controls you install.
One reason why people have been calling to Intel to skip a generation of
chips and move right on to the P7 - Microsoft and Netscape are making
that power needed asap...
> visual j++ requires 24mb of memory folks!
This is just plain sad. And again we note that Microsoft emasculates
Java as a language name, opting for J++ instead. "Don't touch it, it's
> i'm so sad. oh for the several multi-tasking full-blown operating
> systems i've used in the past - amigaos at < 150kb and os/9 at < 48kb.
> at least the javasoft folks are on the right track in terms of
> footprint and dynamism (<4mb for os+base tool framework), but i'm
> not sure how they can interoperate with the rest of the industries
> bloat without becoming bloated themselves.
How to do it? It's a riddle packaged inside a conundrum wrapped in an
enigma, smothered in secret sauce. The short answer is, they can't.
She's like a blonde Godzilla, and I'm thousands of screaming Japanese.