General Discussions about LUGNET : 5279


Administrative / General / 5279

Re: Search button —Mike Stanley

(...) Hunh? Are you pointing out a bug in IE that may well have been eliminated two versions ago? Anyone running IE3 needs to get a clue anyway, and move on up. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Search button —Todd Lehman

(...) No, was asking a question. (...) Mabye so. But what if they're stuck at a library? All the libraries I've been to around here, for example, still use Netscape Navigator 3.0 and refuse to upgrade to 4.0 because of security issues. --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Search button —Mike Stanley

(...) Ok. Do you have a form running now that demonstrates this inability in IE on LUGNET? Gotta admin, knowing your personal hatred for M$, these little "hey, if you're using IE you may have a problem with this so complain to your vendor but if (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I called it "bug" because IMHO it is a User Interface bug. But yeah, more objectively, it is simply an "inability." Okie dokie, here ya go, here's a page with two forms... Type text in the boxes and hit Enter. If nothing happens when you hit (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —James Brown

(...) on (...) Works on MSIE 4.0 for Windows (98). James (URL) getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Great! --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Scott Smallbeck

(...) Just tried that on IE5 and the searches worked fine. Entered the value and pressed enter. _ _ Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Thank gawd. Finally. --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) So are we going to see an announcement that people need not worry about bugging "their browser vendor" because of some problem that IE had 2 versions ago? :) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) No. If it's fixed finally in MSIE, then it's not an issue for MSIE users with recent browsers. If someone is running a browser which has the same bug that MSIE3 had, and it isn't fixed in the current release, and they can't get the source code (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Why 3-year old mayonase tastes bad —Asher Kobin

(...) and (...) How do you define "recent"? Do you consider Nav4.0 recent? If so, then people who are running "recent" versions of nav are open to some pretty scary security holes. (...) You're really streching it here... Subject says it all (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Frank Filz

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) IE on (...) <- snipped a bunch of incompatibilities -> Have you worked with a more recent version of MSIE than version 3? What might be interesting is to put up a test page with some of those other problems (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) A little bit, not a lot. We have MSIE4.5 and MSIE3 for MacOS here, and I can still run MSIE3 under Win32/Win95 on an old box. (...) Lowest common demominator first, then frills. (...) But it also defined the browser in the early days. MS (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) IE 4.5 on the Mac almost approaches the level of non sucking. Stay away from Outlook Express, though. I honestly can't believe you're making broad sweeping comments about "braindead bugs" in a program that you don't even have available for (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Once a bug, always a bug. That's the way it is serving HTML, until an old release trickles off to zero. MSIE3 is still buggy and still in use. I titled the subject "Why MSIE sucks for the HTML *writer*" not "Why MSIE sucks for the user". (...) (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I should have titled the subject, "Why I continue to be frustrated with MSIE as much as I ever have been, while others continue to be progressively less frustrated with MSIE." Or maybe just kept it to myself. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Shiri Dori

(...) <grin> Do you mean that other people have moved to newer versions, but you still have to be in sync with older ones? (...) Maybe... <grin again> -Shiri (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Yes, partially that. But I still prefer Mozilla 4.7 (a.k.a. Netscape Navigator 4.7) and the Milestone versions of Mozilla 5 over any MSIE, just on principle. Plus, MS hasn't even released MSIE for my operating system, so I couldn't run it on (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Errk, too many pints this evening. That should say, (not that anyone cares), "I keep an old _Windows_ system around for regression tests before cutting in major new code changes." I don't run Windows daily anymore, but it's still very (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Generally, it seems like a good idea to me to test more heavily on older browsers when backward compatibility is crucial, since the rendering and UI type of bugs tend to go away rather than to appear over time. Obviously you can't test (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Tim Rueger

(...) *Snort*. So _you_ say. My opinions on web-browser-war "features" are on record here. -Tim (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) That's just staggeringly unbelievable. Not that you aren't reporting the stats you have, of course, I trust you and your server. But to think that people would still be using it. I have to assume they're using a computer over which they have (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I hafta agree, it's pretty crazy. What shipped with the original Win95? Was it MSIE2 or MSIE1? Probably quite a few old machines out there with old Win95 installations on 486's & Pentium 60's with 4MB/8MB RAM...? (...) Hee hee. That makes (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm, interesting: Appears as though the MSIE2 users got that browser as part of an old AOL release... Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 2.1; AOL 3.0; Mac_PPC) Looks like there are also a number of WebTV users with MSIE2... Mozilla/3.0 WebTV/1.2 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —John Robert Blaze Kanehl

(...) Todd, Just curious... Will the continued evolution of Lugnet render me incapable of accessing this site in the near future? (webtvs incompatability w/ java and the new FLASH images preclude me from viewing some websites, even www.Lego.com) Are (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Todd Lehman

(...) I hope not!!! (...) We've no near-term plans for adding Java or Flash. (...) Statistically significant, yes. Difficult to tell how many, though. One small statistic: In the past 16 hours there have been hits from 572 different WebTV IP (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Todd Lehman

(...) Correction: No near-term plans for adding Java, and no plans whatsoever for adding Flash. Any Java would also be purely optional as some sort of enhancement or game. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —John Robert Blaze Kanehl

(...) Thank the gods! (...) I guess I may be responsible for 10 -20 percent of the webtv hits.. (...) I think your assessment would be correct...I am extreme in my habits though...My connection terminates for phone calls and times out after 5 mins (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Craig Hamilton

(...) i hope not too! i'd be at a loss without lugnet! i must dial up 572 times a day... (...) or just a number of significant members? ;-) (...) oops! (hee-he-he!) (...) yeah, seriously that's about it. sometimes more; sometimes less. oftentimes my (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Steve Bliss

(...) I had to read those acronyms a couple of times before proper decoding occurred. It's hard to believe that MS let those out the door. WINCE, indeed. :) Steve (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE & AOL/WebTV/SunOS —Richard Franks

(...) Yeah, they had it at my old work.. I heard that it staggered like a lame dog that had just licked up one broken bottles worth of whisky, and had currently forgotten that it had only three legs. I never tried it though, I was happy with (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Susan Hoover

(...) Neither. To get IE, you had to buy the Plus! pack. (MS's bang, not mine.) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) Just a followup question - do those numbers reflect unique IP addresses? Not really a perfect way to determine if they're really unique people since most people get a different IP each time they connect with their dial-up provider, but I guess (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Good question. Over a short period of time (such as a day) I think the proxy servers at big places like AOL end up drawfing the "dialup double-ups." But that's just a hunch. BTW, in the past 2 weeks, one single IP address (of the zillions that (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Here are some numbers from 77 days (11 weeks) of HTTP logs... DYOC, but it looks to me like Microsoft is winning. --Todd ___...___ 13833968 HTTP requests - 1 Jan 2000 through 17 Mar 2000 - www.lugnet.com Notes: 1. The browser brands below are (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mark Koesel

"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FrL4wC.GsL@lugnet.com... (...) IE on (...) VALUE=""></FORM> (...) VALUE=""></FORM> </BODY></HTML> (...) This works on IE5/Win32 (as someone pointed out). I don't have the Unix version or Mac (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Say, you know what other braindead thing MSIE3 does/did? When you hit Enter in an edit box (when there's only one form on the page), it even gets THAT wrong -- it submits the form without setting the value of the NAME field of the <INPUT (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) This works fine with IE5. So it isn't a bug, unless you define a bug as something that didn't work 3 years ago. I'm sure we could find a lot of things in older (or current) versions of Netscape that don't work the way you or I want them to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I said MSIE sometimes required the explicit button. I'm glad to hear that it's fixed in the recent versions, but MSIE3 is still in active use today. I'll be grinding some Netscape axes in a couple days too. :) --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) It's a HUGE deal. You leave a search button off a form by accident (on a page with more than one form) and some poor user out there is up the creek without a paddle, and probably doesn't know why, or can't switch browsers. :-( (...) IMHO, it (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Shiri Dori

(...) And it's even green! (Temporarily ;-) -Shiri (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Frank Filz

(...) What is supposed to be broken about it? It looks ok in my MSIE 4. Frank (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I would be only too happy to hear that it actually is fixed in MSIE 4. Would it be too much trouble to ask for a screenshot? --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Shiri Dori

(...) I can send you one from my IE 5 if you want. LMK. -Shiri (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

MSIE5 better than MSIE4 & MSIE3 (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) (got it, thanks). Most excellent -- it looks correct finally. The way it used to look was that it had thin horizontal white lines between each row of <TD>'s, due to the bug with the extra doubling of pixel borders around the images. I'm glad (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better than MSIE4 & MSIE3 (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mike Stanley

(...) I'm almost certain you can do this. The one time I remember trying it (during a time when I needed to be able to help people with questions on multiple browsers) it worked ok. No guarantees, though. (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Frank Filz

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) Sure thing, take a look at: (URL) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) why don't you start using it? Bug reports are always very welcome, and I find that for the most part, it's quite usable - I like it a lot more than NC :) Dan (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I meant that I can't wait for it to become 'real' -- stable and complete enough to use for everything. I've tried M12, M13, and M14, and it keeps getting better and better, but M14 isn't quite yet what I need for everyday tasks. Using it more (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) the only thing I'm really missing from it is a newsreader, and that's just cause I'm lazy - I should just use emacs's since I use emacs for everything else anyway... if only I could figure out how to sync news messages I read at home with ones (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) Then *you* need to be more specific in your announcements, especially given your outspoken anti-M$ attitude. :) If you're not going to bother checking the _current_ version of IE, you need to say so. If you're talking about a bug that, to the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) MSIE3 --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) It was (is) broken in MSIE3. But if you were running MSIE3 back in 1998, the bug never showed up because the nodes and connector lines in the graphs were each in their own table cell. The bug became visible in mid-1999 when the table was (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) I never really used IE3 - I was using NN3 then, then NN4, then once IE4 became fairly stable I switched to it for a while, then back to NN4, then tried NC4.x, couldn't stand how unstable it was, then IE5 came out and I've never switched back (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) Ya, long, long ago. I think it was MSIE3 that I submitted to MS a list of bugs 22 long. (...) If there are any left, I'd hope so! --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And I would hope NOT. NS has better things to do with their time than fix 3 year old software. Standard policy in software is to drop support for stuff more than 18 months old. And that's a GOOD think IMHO. By your own admission (the stats (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) LOL! Unless you can go back in time, it's literally impossible to fix bugs in older browsers! Once you fix the bug, you've created a new version, and the old version continues to exist. I think we interpreted Mike's question differently. I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin

(...) fixing (...) Backward compat is a sometimes difficult issue to deal with. Case in point, because of the many differences in the rendering capabilities between Nav and IE, many site authors have to write small workarounds to get even polarity (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I'd like to see that browser be Mozilla, but MSIE is still far, far more solid. BTW, does MS have any plans to release a Linux version of MSIE? Or is it recommended to run it under WINE instead? (...) This thread has helped a lot. I actually (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) for the love of god, please no! Ideally there would be 10s of browsers available, but they would all render the same pages in the same way. I have never used IE, and have no plans to - especially since there's no version for my OS of choice. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin

(...) For Linux users, Microsoft recommends following the instructions in this KB article: (URL) I can't answer your question, but I can say that Microsoft's awareness (and interest) of the Linux OS has increased dramatically, although it did take (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, you just needed to get a clue that not everyone likes MS practices w.r.t. marketing and software development and some people are clever enough to do something about it that may well threaten MS's stranglehold. What's the old saying? "Dos (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Asher Kobin

(...) although (...) I don't understand how your comment relates to what I said above. Please don't insult me saying that I don't have a clue. I'm not a mindless Microsoft drone. (...) This seems to support what I talked about in an earlier post (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Steve Bliss

(...) PMFJI, but most of the complaints lodged against MSIE (in this thread) have been about the *engine*, not the GUI wrapper. The issues discussed have been how IE interprets various HTML constructs, and how it renders them onto the display. (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm having trouble parsing the above paragraph taken as a whole in light of reality unless you're being deliberately mouthpieceish/obtuse. Here are a few tidbits. MS has a track record of doing things to screw other companies over. It goes (...) (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Whoops. c /rendering engine/UI/ as we DO care about the rendering engine. also c/underneat/underneath/ would that what was underneath were neat. ++Lar (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Did you really think that was funny? Talk about arrogant. I type this on a 192 MB real memory 600 MHz pentium III running NT and boy is it slow. (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) compared to my Pentium I, 200 MHz, 64 MB, that run so much faster and does so much more :P Dan (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I dunno if you can do MORE on Linux (we ought to take this to .geek, Linux doesn't yet have the vast body of apps that Wintel does) but you certainly can do a lot of things faster. ++Lar (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:17:44 GMT "Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) it's true that the app base is not as big, yet... but considering what I use my home win95 for - basicly browsing (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) Which browser are you using on Linux that you would call "better" than IE5? Seriously. Every time time I try some flavor of Netscape product for Linux it just ends up making me run screaming back to browsing on Windows. In fact, I would rather (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I love Linux, I hate Windows, but I have yet to see any Linux web browser other than Lynx which even comes remotely close to MSIE5 in how well it works. Netscape sucks, Mozilla sucks. But -- Mozilla will get better, and it will squash MSIE in (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller

(...) Have you looked at w3m? It seems like a better Lynx than Lynx.... (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I'm amazed by how w3m can handle mouse clicks like that. :) Also pretty great to be able to pipe stdin to it. I wish it would keep stdin open like more does, though, to feed it streaming data. :) I had a lot of problems getting the popup menus (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) I'm really curious as to why you believe that. Really. If Netscape were interested in or capable of producing an IE-killer browser, why haven't they done it already? Given the almost universally agreed-upon crappiness of Communicator 4.7 what (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) I believe that because I believe Mozilla that will, in the long run (if it hasn't already), attract better and more dedicated programmers, designers, and testers to work on it than MSIE. (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) You repeat this over and over again, as if simply stating it will somehow make it more obvious and more true. Mozilla may turn out to be more than a browser. But who is making it? (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:29:30 GMT Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) I think you're misunderstanding the point. Mozilla (the browser Todd is referring to) is _not_ written or sold by (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley

(...) Yeah, it does. Thanks. So what that probably means is that within a year or so we'll have a version of mozilla that ultra-geeks know and love, maybe within 5 years we'll get some media hype, then we'll see normal people move over to it, some (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller

(...) My understanding is that very little of it is based on Navigator code at this point. Early versions of Mozilla were, but then the developers decided that there was too much cruft and started over from scratch, this time with A Plan. This is (...) (25 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) I never used IE, and I will probably never will - unless they come out with IE for linux and then I'll give it a shot. I used to use NN and my MOC browser :P but now I've switched to mozilla, and I'm _very_ happy with it :) (...) errr... I'm (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) I can't get TrueType fonts to display correctly in Mozilla (a build from two nights ago). Do they work for you? I'm specifying 'times new roman' and 'courier new' and 'arial' for the three fonts (serif, monospace, and sans- serif, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger

(...) as far as I can tell, mozilla has no problems showing any kind of fonts - though I never bothered to install to many. What X server are you using? As a rule, font problems are related to xfs, and not to the application... (...) nope, no tricks (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) I'm using the xfs that came with RHL 6.1... If I fire up xfontsel and look at arial, for example, and set the pxlsz to a variety of numbers, they all look correct and beautifully hinted. I can recognize individual character glyphs as being (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:07:53 GMT Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)': (...) Serif: times 16 Sans Serif: Helvetica monospace: Courier 13 Dan (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Matthew Miller

(...) I haven't gotten it to even build the last two nights. :) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller

(...) Yeah, it does. And port-forwarding and other advanced features too. It's definitely the best ssh client available for ms windows. (Too bad NetTerm doesn't do SSH - it has such nice fonts....) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I'm using MindTerm, a GPL'd Java implementation of ssh: (URL) it doesn't seem to support sftp, it does talk scp (not sure how much better sftp is, though) and a buncha other features including port forwarding. Features list is at (URL) . Plus, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Okay, my bad. It looks like it does support sftp; it just doesn't call it that. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman

(...) needed to boot NT once to make sure the hardware wasn't damaged before reformatting the drive and putting a real OS (Linux) on it. Felt good. I also ran a free copy of Bill Gates's book _The_Road_Ahead_ through the paper shredder a few months (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller

While we're off-topic, lemme just quickly complain about the way MS's content-generation "tools" use "Microsoft Latin-1" instead of the actual ISO 8859-1 Latin-1 character set. Urg. (URL) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin

(...) Are you ignorant? Do you understant competition? What would happen If every car was the same? We want people to use our browser, so obviously we have to make it better (what the Linux world calls embrace and extend). We are more RFC compliant (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger

(...) I was actually interested to see what it was... And in fact I do understand competition, but I also understand standards. If you want people to use your browser, you should make it faster, or use less memory, or have more _client_side_ (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Eric Joslin

(...) Probably the same thing that would happen if MSIE had a 100% market share. (In lugnet.admin.general 5378, Asher Kobin wrote: (...) ) eric (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin

(...) But that's a good thing :) The great thing about IE is that it can be repurposed. Anyone can slap on their own UI (AOL, webTV, NeoPlanet) and decide what features to implement or not to implemnt. If you understand COM and how IE is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And of course the MS track record at making things faster or less buggy is SO good. Sorry for the sarcasm, I like MS, and I'm a stockholder but I still find your statement laughable. (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Eric Joslin

(...) Umm, huh? I thought you were implying that competition was good because it inspired better growth. Is what you really mean to say "We should be allowed to compete with other browsers, but once we're winning, the other guys should just give in (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin

My only point was that if every web browser did only and exactly what the RFC said, there would be no innovation. Even if MS had 100% of the market, we would still go above and beyond the spec. If they had 100% and they only lived by the spec, a new (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Frank Filz

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38D4D6F1.75A47A1D@n...ra.com>... (...) Of course in the router code I work on at IBM, we currently support 4 versions of the code, which amounts to like 3 years worth of versions or so. Of course there is a lot (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

Doing some testing with MSIE5 under Win98 under Virtual PC under MacOS9... Replying to my message from last night... (...) Fixed in MSIE5. Yay! (...) Not sure about this yet. (...) Fixed in MSIE5. Yay! But it looks like there's a new "oddity" ("it's (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Asher Kobin

(...) Why do you consider this difference in behavior between the two browsers to be "broken" in IE5? Obviously, I can make the reverse argument and say it is "broken" in Nav. Neither browser is going to change this behaviour, it will break (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) It selected an item in the list which didn't have the "SELECTED" attribute. That's broken, period. (...) aha. --Todd (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) This is referring to the "many-from-many" (a.k.a. "MULTIPLE") version of <SELECT>, BTW, not to the "one-from-many" version of <SELECT>. --Todd (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) Well, maybe you're right about that after all. According to section 8.1.3 of RFC1866[1] (HTML 2.0), "[t]he initial state has the first option selected, unless a SELECTED attribute is present on any of the <OPTION> elements." (This is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Asher Kobin

(...) Ok, well I couldn't stop from smiling when I read your post. It sounds to me that Netscape did a little "embracing and extending" of its own in this area :) (...) I don't understand your question... (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) I have a web page on www.lugnet.com which sends out four multiple-select lists. In each of those lists, I want _none_ of the list items to be pre-selected. If the user clicks Submit without explicitly selecting any items in any of those list (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mike Stanley

(...) Ok, just so I understand this, you're saying that MS, a company that is almost universally condemned for _not_ adhering to standards, should have done what others (and maybe you) have screamed about all along - that is violate those standards? (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) I'm saying: IMHO, it is unfortunate that Microsoft did not do what Netscape did in that case, which was to violate the spec as Netscape did. The spec ended up changing in 4.0 anyway, so if MS has done what NN did, then at least the top 2 (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mark Koesel

"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FrqMLK.LCo@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) probably (...) rather (...) goes (...) experience, (...) The problem with that is "arguably broken" is subjective. If one vendor thinks the standard is (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Mark Koesel

"Asher Kobin" <asherk@pobox.com> wrote in message news:FrqHo3.2KJ@lugnet.com... (...) MacOS9... (...) with the (...) the (...) item at (...) to (...) How come I can't get IE5 to reproduce this on my machine? Here is the page I was using to test it. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) Correction! Fixed in MSIE5! (Yay!) (...) Hmm, yet MSIE *did* change this behavior at some point between MSIE3 and MSIE5 (which is a good thing, IMHO, even if it breaks compatibility with previous versions, because it creates fewer new problems (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman

(...) LOL! Alpha 1 of MSIE 3.0 didn't even come out until March 1996.[1] MSIE 3.0 was released August 1996. My MSIE 3.02 executable is dated June 4, 1997. (...) Tail end of 1997, yes. (...) March 1999. (...) No, my beef still is having to be aware (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)