Originally posted by Vertigo1
LMFAO! What planet are you from dude? If Firefox is a "shell" over Mozilla, then why doesn't it require that Mozilla be installed? Futhermore, why is it moving to a seperate codebase than Mozilla Suite if it was a "stupid shell"? 
Where is your proof that FireFox is just a shell over Mozilla?
"Moving from" is
different than "Done from scratch". All that really means is that Mozilla Suite and Firefox are beginning to go different directions. A fork in the road, so to speak. What you dont seem to know is that Mozilla was
around a helluva lot longer than you might think. Back in the days, the browser based off of the Mozilla engine was called "Netscape". Perhaps you've heard of it?
Irrelevant, yes, but it still doesnt change anything... I suppose... Or something.
Erm, last I checked NT was the first true 32-bit operating system from MS, not 2000. Furthermore, NT was MS's first server oriented platform as well.
Not entirely true. NT 3.5 was their first NTOS, ofcourse and it was, in all of it's glory, 16 bit. When NT4 came out, it saw the ability to use some 32 bit optimizations, but it was still only 16 bit. Enhanced 16 bit, but 16 bit nonetheless. It wasnt until Windows 2000 came along when they had a REAL 32 bit OS. Furthermore, it wasnt WHAT it did, but HOW it did it. The way NT4 worked was very different from 2000, and they re-invented the spokes, so to speak.
Of course not. Nowhere did I ever say Linux is perfect. Superior to windows in many ways, yes. Perfect, no.
Perfection is a paradox. I wont go into Newtonian physics or Murphy's law (I owe all my failures to Murphy
), but true, it's not perfect. Neither is Server 2003. Superior to Linux in many ways, yes. Perfect, no. What the differences of what many superior ways one OS has against the other are, is purely speculation aside from application. I think you failed to mention that part.
Erm...isn't that the entire POINT of open source software? When someone notices a loophole, it gets fixed ASAP instead of waiting weeks on end for companies like MS to take their sweet time releasing a patch and hope to hell it even works properly.
I agree, MSs practices are less than perfect. Hell, I even would say they downright suck sometimes. However, to blindly say that open source is better is just plain stupid. There is something called context, learn to understand it.
Erm...WHAT "serious complications"? If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be ****ing with it in the first place. What, just because linux doesn't have a nice pretty fisher price GUI like XP's default theme, it isn't as robust? Thats a laugh.
Oh, grow up. Do you honestly think every XP user is some old lady who uses the internet to check e-mail from her grandchildren? As my grandfather used to say, "Step aside, kids. The adults are busy".
Drinks and software standards are two complete different beasts bub.
Hear here! *raises a shotglass*
Limits? What limits? Oh, you mean so it will actually work properly for everyone instead of for just one browser? Furthermore, I challenge you to prove that we'd still be using HTML 3.0 even if IE didn't come around and dethrone Netscape 3. You are aware that software is constantly evolving, right?
...
I can tell by that response that you are extremely ignorant about this type of thing... or much more likely, you're an anti-ms fanboy in denial. HTML 3 was a rock solid standard, except it was just that. A standard that was like a giant rock (dont ask me, I dont know what that means either). Apparently, table sizes were proportional to the browser window, even if the table was written in pixels. MS saw that it was flawed logic, and made it so pixels meant pixels in the early MSIE 4 era. This was one of many things that MS decided to superseed (sp?) on the spec. This was ofcourse a wakeup call, and it was no surprise that many people started to question the ideas of the W3C. This was about the time where browsers started coming up with their own things. MS with iFrames, Netscape with extended DIV tags, etc. As of now, the W3C is unofficially considered just what the standard SHOULD be in their own eyes. MS has abandoned them, as has Opera and Mozilla in some cases. The standards are gone after HTML4 CSS (which was never really official to begin with). XML ofcourse is a touchy subject, so I wont go there.
Someone that designs websites professionally, not some dinky mom & pop site on geocities.
See above and note the "not everybody" line. No cookie for you.
You are aware that proper DHTML and CSS coding will render exactly the same on every browser, right? (Well, except for IE since MS seems to ignore the "px" and wants "pt" instead.)
Again, see above. "Proper" DHTML never existed. And as for the px vs. pt, it was a MacOS and Windows thing, not Mozilla and MS. But as far as "common" goes, they are very similar. As a web designer, it is in the primary interest of my customers to fall under that common umbrella. Think about it for a second. Not everyone has Mozilla Suite, not everyone has MSIE6, not everyone has Opera, not everyfrikkinone has Netscape 4.78, Not everybody and his god damn bastard of a brother (I HATE that guy) has Lynx, etc. Therefore, I leave DHTML and JavaScript completely out of the picture. My target audience may be using MSIE, but I will not make it so that Firefox cant read the page correctly, nor likewise. I make clean sites, and I leave layers, floats, iFrames, and stupid needlessly flashing text at the door.
But oh well, if you decide to continue backing up your arguments with personal insults, I suppose it's not worth my time. If you use personal insults, back them up with arguments, not the other way around. Regardless, it looks like the discussion is getting off topic, and I'll finish the argument with four simple words:
For each, their own.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Kamikaze
If you're anything near a "real" web designer how can you possibly not have encountered one of the numerous IE specific bugs with styling? (padding errors with floated boxes, box model errors, etc.) For that matter, how do you make any "real" websites without CSS? Separating styling and structure is a good thing.
You can make a "real" website without CSS... It's called HTML 4, and it's a very useful markup language. Otherwise, use minimal CSS and make it supplementary, instead of primary coding. I dont know why everyone seems to think to make a good website, you need every stinkin feature there is under the sun.
