The below is from another discussion of the thread 'IE for the Mac no longer under development',
on the hopper-ex Director list. We skip the opening of the thread and proceed into the relation
between the NASDAQ crash and MSFT stock crash and the DOJ action and decision.
t.whid and my correspondant below both believe the bushies will not kick the MSFT bush. probably
the prognostication is correct. but should Microsoft be allowed now to proceed against the
decision concerning OS integrated browsers being unfair competition? slippery slippery.
ja
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:26 PM
To: Multiple recipients of hopper-ex
Subject: <hopper-ex> Re: IE for the Mac no longer under development
> > Beginning of MSFT crash: JANUARY 2000
> > Beginning of NASDAQ crash: MARCH 2000
> > DOJ Decision: JUNE 2000
> > USA Election date: NOVEMBER 7, 2000
>
> > NASDAQ in five year view: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^IXIC&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z=b&q=l
> >
> > The NASDAQ fall begins around March 2000 and ain't even down to the bottom by
> > the time of the election
> > in November.
>
> Well! I sit corrected. Thanks for the link and the lesson in
> self-revised history. Sucks to have it shown so clearly that I suffer
> from selective recollection and/or wholesale remanufacturing of the
> past to suit a present emotional sense. (Because I like to think better
> of myself, not because you've been proved right.) Sigh. I guess I need
> to go back to Vulcan for a while to get some brush-up courses!
What the above graph shows is that NASDAQ peaks in March
2000 and a sharp descent occurs–the first one for a long time after a strong rise over several
years. Check out the 25 year view of NASDAQ at
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^IXIC&d=c&kA&a=v&p=s&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l .
The DOJ decision came after the fall by at least two months. You recall, though, how in March
came the first realizations that Microsoft might well lose and in a big way. There was talk at
that point of breaking Microsoft up like AT&T was split up. It was not a large probability, but
it did loom among the possibilities rather newsworthy and was widely speculated.
Why did the stocks crash? Part of the problem was the valuation of companies like Yahoo with
General Motors. But another part was the realization that Microsoft's fortunes were critical to
many another company's fortune if only because of how MSFT stock prices had been steady Eddy up
and up. No company was more solid in its stock in IT since, oh, big blue IBM before it, say.
Microsoft claimed the DOJ was stifling innovation; the DOJ
claimed that they were, instead, regulating monopoly. The hope of the DOJ had been that the
economy would thrive via breakup of such important monopoly as that of the desktop in a world
where the Net and the desktop become intermingled, intertwined. Instead, the drop in the
Microsoft stock price (check out the five year view of Microsoft at
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MSFT&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z=b&q=l drops sharply in March and April–and
even before that, in January 2000), is typical of what followed for many other companies.
Compare the two graphs in their five year views. The Microsoft fall slightly predates the NASDAQ
fall and has more
valiant recoveries and dramatic declines. They were among the first to suffer in a big way in
their stock price.
Microsoft was shown not to be as solid as a rock in the stock market and to be feuding
unproductively with even the judge (who later blundered irrecoverably and exposed real bias).
Also, 'the five year thing' caught up with ecommerce companies. And this is independent of the
DOJ situation, for the most part, a bad coincidence of timing. If the DOJ action had been close
to the time IE 4 came out in 97, perhaps the market would have weathered the storm in a more
resilient manner. Look at this cnet.com article/poll–at
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-203897.html?legacy=cnet –that discusses the issue of Microsoft
OS-browser integration from *1997* when IE 4 came out. People did not favor it then in its first
incarnation, IE 4. If it had been dealt with in 97, dot.com wouldn't have been at the end of its
five year speculation period. But presumably that could not have happened easily at that time.
Generally, in business, you get
five years to make it or break it. A salable, financially profitable line of products has to be
in place and making money by that time, often, or the company is deemed to be toast by investors
who can no longer justify their investment that, originally, had been future-looking over
basically a five year plan. Sometimes longer. Sometimes shorter. But profitability of the
business must be in the cards unless it is a non-profit organization and, even then, some sort
of sustainable economy of production has to be in place. From 1995 till 2000 was the five year
dot.com speculation period.
The art one has been poorer and longer and somewhat more abstract, less dependent on venture
capital and even relating to the institutions and their often fair-weather support of net.art.
Who got the goods baby?
The artists do.
Back to the past though: many ecommerce businesses were burning capital with no good products or
services in sight when the new millenium dawned, yawned and sneered at dot.commery.
And I'm sure there were other factors. In any case, I suspect we agree that these factors were
more decisive in the NASDAQ crash than the mere fact of the DOJ MSFT action–that had been
ongoing for some time–and in fact the
beginnings of the MSFT and then the NASDAQ fall happened before the DOJ decision–in response
not only to federal heat but also in reaction to the generally precarious position of the net
economy and its exorbitant capital valuations.
Microsoft should not be immune to monopoly laws. Nor should Apple. Or Linux. Microsoft will
argue that this is the proper competition concerning browser competition: competition among
operating systems, not among non-OS companies. Because the OS that is isolated to the desktop is
the OS that does not invite the Net into the desktop and is, therefore, not the computing and
information source the desktop could be.
Or they will argue that desktop access to the net can have private significance also via the
Active Desktop, the startup tray, and so on.
> > > BTW, Jim, what's the URL for your site again? A question came up a
> > > while back on another list about beautiful Shockwave sites and I
> > > thought of yours,
> > http://vispo.com
>
> Very good. I'll pass it along. The question came up on Dirgames-L, BTW.
Thanks. I'm currently working on Windows for Shockwave 4.0. I've finished an article
about 3.0 for DOUG, in the DOUG queue somewhere. It's an overview of WFS 3.0 with a last section
about 4.0.
I've been forsaking the art for the dev work into WFS 4.0. But I want 4.0 for my art. 4.0 will
support dynamic creation/destruction of sprites and multi-sprites at run-time. Via a channel
manager that doles out channels free among the last channels in which dragndrop sprites never
reside. Writing managers of this sort is a relatively easy manager to write. It's the sprite and
multi-sprite creation/destruction handlers and the dynamic behavior attachers/detachers that
will be new in 4.0.
In authoring tools/languages such as C++, Delphi, Visual Basic, etc, there is no Score
(timeline) and development proceeds basically window-by-window, or menu-by-menu. The resulting
applications are, conceptually, one-frame movies in which objects are dynamically created and
destroyed. WFS 3.0 supports the "window-by-window" and/or "menu-by-menu" part of the above. WFS
4.0 will support the "dynamically created and destroyed" part.
In a new piece I will continue working on after WFS 4.0, there will be some featureful
interactive audio interfaces via dynamic windowing of multi-sprites. That is where I am going
with WFS.
this is at the 'application level', not really the 'desktop level'. Like Sound Forge etc., only
online via Shockwave.
but it's a long way to the shop if you want a software sausage roll.
Not at the desktop level but toward a different kind of integration: art and windowed, dyamic
applications.
I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for mind-blowing features that
transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong net integration. but in
certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open. the feds can't just back
off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where Microsoft and Apple attempt
together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not necessarily putting the kibosh
on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not OS-integrated, perhaps
OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out what serves the societies of
the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they continue to support various
protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get their deeper browser-OS
integration.
or, as you say, the bushies may just walk away.
ja
FW: <hopper-ex> Re: IE for the Mac no longer under development
-
Type: discussion
Comments
>
>
> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> mind-blowing features that
> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> net integration. but in
> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> the feds can't just back
> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> necessarily putting the kibosh
> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
> OS-integrated, perhaps
> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> what serves the societies of
> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> continue to support various
> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> their deeper browser-OS
> integration.
I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky imo.
there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate the
browser into the OS.
First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc. the
rendering engine is just part of the software. There are tons of ways
MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely advanced
web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
open source; uses tons of proprietary tags; allows funky syntax; and,
tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS and
PNG). (and don't get me started on frontpage). There is already
competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing any
competition, they're encouraging it.
I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you needed
a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
> > I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> > mind-blowing features that
> > transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> > net integration. but in
> > certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> > the feds can't just back
> > off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> > Microsoft and Apple attempt
> > together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> > necessarily putting the kibosh
> > on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
> > OS-integrated, perhaps
> > OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> > what serves the societies of
> > the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> > continue to support various
> > protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> > their deeper browser-OS
> > integration.
>
> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky imo.
I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an agreement to back off each
other's browser territory.
> there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate the
> browser into the OS.
>
> First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
> engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
> way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc.
there are windows popup killers. spy killers. spam assassins and knowbots. a scurvy lot, for the
most part.
and of course you can save bookmarks and delete cookies in IE for the PC.
> the
> rendering engine is just part of the software.
which software? the OS? or a separate renderer?
there are various levels of access to CPU cycles, and different languages have farther to go
through protocols and APIs between their requests and the CPU. the deeper into the OS you can
get in the first step, the shorter the computation time. in short, renderers need all the juice
they can get, and you get that with OS-integration.
you also get security headaches because there's always some backdoor into the OS through the
browser.
Is OSX open source itself? I doubt it, somehow.
> There are tons of ways
> MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely advanced
> web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
Microsoft did not engineer Netscape 6, which sucked. Netscape chose not to support their own
layer tag and not to support a too wide range of the DOM. People came to hate Netscape 6 not for
what Microsoft did to Netscape but what AOL did to Netscape. There was dev despair radiating
illness in that browser. the netscape developers–their job had been to change the world. now
they were working–or had since quit–for AOL and being tarted up and market-driven rather than
engineering driven, and with a smaller team.
when marketing has too strong a hand in an engineering venture, what gets engineered is fantasy.
> The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
> most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
> main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
> and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
> open source;
Yes, well, he isn't the only one on such a team, I hope.
it's true that microsoft works behind closely guarded walls. they are proud paranoiacs.
but maintaining the integrity of source code is a big job, even bigger in open source. obviously
it cannot be without certain flexible but sound security mechanisms so that code is accessed
securely and reviewed by a larger team and is widely tested and refined in accepted engineering
practice.
> uses tons of proprietary tags;
that isn't a problem unless developers choose to use them, knowing they are proprietary. i used
the innerHTML tag, which is not in the DOM but is supported to some extent, nonetheless, by
Netscape 6 and 7 (though not in exactly the same way). why? it's a cool tag. did the stir fry
texts with it (which don't run on the Mac either).
the functionality of IE for the PC is pretty funky.
> allows funky syntax;
That is actually a virtue of it.
> and,
> tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS and
> PNG).
Is there a PC browser as advanced as IE in its CSS support?
> (and don't get me started on frontpage).
I use Dreamweaver and notepad.
> There is already
> competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
> OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
> easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing any
> competition, they're encouraging it.
t.whid, you are not aware of the IE Active X control that developers can insert into their
applications. This control allows developers to do just what you are describing on the PC and
has been around for quite a while: since IE 4–that was a big part of OS-integration–so that
the system always had a OLE compliant Active X control for whatever application wanted one at
run-time.
> I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
> service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you needed
> a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
i agree. also, as net.artists, we do have an interest in OS-browser integration.
> And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
> like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
Not at all. There are other Mac browsers, are there not, made by private companies? Same
principle as with Microsoft, only on a different platform. Clearly it isn't the case though that
the same logic applies to Internet Explorer and the Windows platform. Ooooohhhhh no. It walks
like a duck and it talks like a duck, t.whid. Mac is a smaller duck, but a duck no the wat.
What we are witnessing is a change in the perception concerning OS-browser integration from 97
to now. people can see now that those browser controls being insertable into applications is an
important possibility in *meaningful* integration of the net into the desktop. This is true for
the Mac and Windows. i'm not sure how separable the IE renderer is from the browser in the
Active X control. Quite, I would think, given how you can get rid of all the browser chrome in
IE onscreen.
> thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
what i've argued above, t.whid, is that just about all of the features you mention that are in
OSX are also in Windows 98 and IE 6.
i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when, in fact, they are doing much
the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on their respective platforms in
their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work fairly closely together, as
they historically have on various projects, including browser technology.
ja
http://vispo.com
hm, didn't realize this had become a Mac vs. PC thing 'til now. I just
assume everyone hates MS haha. this tho i work in a windows-centric
environment.
more below:
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
>>> mind-blowing features that
>>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
>>> net integration. but in
>>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
>>> the feds can't just back
>>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
>>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
>>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
>>> necessarily putting the kibosh
>>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
>>> OS-integrated, perhaps
>>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
>>> what serves the societies of
>>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
>>> continue to support various
>>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
>>> their deeper browser-OS
>>> integration.
>>
>> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
>> imo.
>
> I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> agreement to back off each
> other's browser territory.
Apple has never made a browser for Windows so I'm not sure what this
means.
MS's statement that they can't compete on the browser on OSX means
either one of two things neither of which puts MS in a good light: 1)
they are admitting that if someone controls the OS than it's easy for
them to knock out competitors, the field isnt' flat, or 2) that was
just bs they made as an excuse to kill off part of the Mac BU at MS. as
i outlined in my last post Apple's browser implementation makes it
easier to compete in that area on Mac OSX.
>
>> there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate
>> the
>> browser into the OS.
>>
>> First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
>> engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
>> way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc.
>
> there are windows popup killers. spy killers. spam assassins and
> knowbots. a scurvy lot, for the
> most part.
>
> and of course you can save bookmarks and delete cookies in IE for the
> PC.
i don't think you caught my meaning. the rendering engine does just
that, renders HTML, whereas the browser adds all the bells and whistles
around it. That's how all browsers work regardless of platform.
>
>> the
>> rendering engine is just part of the software.
>
> which software? the OS? or a separate renderer?
i was meaning the browser, the rendering engine is just one part of a
browser.
>
> there are various levels of access to CPU cycles, and different
> languages have farther to go
> through protocols and APIs between their requests and the CPU. the
> deeper into the OS you can
> get in the first step, the shorter the computation time. in short,
> renderers need all the juice
> they can get, and you get that with OS-integration.
>
> you also get security headaches because there's always some backdoor
> into the OS through the
> browser.
>
> Is OSX open source itself? I doubt it, somehow.
OSX's kernal, called Darwin (it's even been ported to pentium-class
processors
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html), is
open source (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/). the graphics layer,
Quartz, is not open source, but you can install other windowing systems
on OSX, like X11 (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/X11/)
which is open source.
>
>> There are tons of ways
>> MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely
>> advanced
>> web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
>
> Microsoft did not engineer Netscape 6, which sucked. Netscape chose
> not to support their own
> layer tag and not to support a too wide range of the DOM. People came
> to hate Netscape 6 not for
> what Microsoft did to Netscape but what AOL did to Netscape. There was
> dev despair radiating
> illness in that browser. the netscape developers–their job had been
> to change the world. now
> they were working–or had since quit–for AOL and being tarted up and
> market-driven rather than
> engineering driven, and with a smaller team.
i agree Netscape 6 wasn't all that great. but it did have good
standards support. the issue was moot by the time it hit the street
anyway and it didn't help itself at all. they killed off the layer tag
because it's not a standard, that was a good thing to have happen.
i'm fairly certain that netscape supports the standard DOM. actually,
they make a pretty good case that they have the best support:
http://wp.netscape.com/browsers/future/standards.html (those charts
were creating using IE 5.5, 6 is a bit better)
>
> when marketing has too strong a hand in an engineering venture, what
> gets engineered is fantasy.
>
>> The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
>> most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
>> main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
>> and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
>> open source;
>
> Yes, well, he isn't the only one on such a team, I hope.
>
> it's true that microsoft works behind closely guarded walls. they are
> proud paranoiacs.
which will be their eventual downfall, let us hope. vive la unix!
>
> but maintaining the integrity of source code is a big job, even bigger
> in open source. obviously
> it cannot be without certain flexible but sound security mechanisms so
> that code is accessed
> securely and reviewed by a larger team and is widely tested and
> refined in accepted engineering
> practice.
>
>> uses tons of proprietary tags;
>
> that isn't a problem unless developers choose to use them, knowing
> they are proprietary.
and they do, all the damn time!
> i used
> the innerHTML tag, which is not in the DOM but is supported to some
> extent, nonetheless, by
> Netscape 6 and 7 (though not in exactly the same way). why? it's a
> cool tag. did the stir fry
> texts with it (which don't run on the Mac either).
see! :-)
>
> the functionality of IE for the PC is pretty funky.
>
>> allows funky syntax;
>
> That is actually a virtue of it.
well no, it's not. it's a virtue for those who like to think that
Windows is the only platform. the lazy developer simply writes for IE
and tho it's crap code, it renders fine in IE, but it doesn't work
properly in other browsers. it could work properly if someone would
write it correctly.
>
>> and,
>> tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS
>> and
>> PNG).
>
> Is there a PC browser as advanced as IE in its CSS support?
sure, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera (a chart detailing CSS support: (not for
the faint of heart)
http://macedition.com/cb/resources/abridgedcsssupport.html) and IE has
some serious problems with CSS support, the main one being lack of
support for position: fixed and if you don't include a doctype, it gets
the box model wrong (pain in the ass that one, 5.5 gets it wrong
regardless).
>
>> (and don't get me started on frontpage).
>
> I use Dreamweaver and notepad.
>
>> There is already
>> competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
>> OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
>> easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing
>> any
>> competition, they're encouraging it.
>
> t.whid, you are not aware of the IE Active X control that developers
> can insert into their
> applications. This control allows developers to do just what you are
> describing on the PC and
> has been around for quite a while: since IE 4–that was a big part of
> OS-integration–so that
> the system always had a OLE compliant Active X control for whatever
> application wanted one at
> run-time.
no, i'm well aware that it's very simple to imbed IE into applications
on Windows. tons of apps use it.
so why did they have to kill off Netscape? why not simply have this
available as an OS feature for developers? why not open up the code?
it's a very different thing to have open source Webcore on OSX as part
of your application than to have the closed imbedded IE. if MS decides
to change something in IE that fux yer app what are you to do? in the
open source world you simply change the code to the way you like it and
start distributing it with your code instead of the one that has
changed.
>
>> I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
>> service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you
>> needed
>> a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
>
> i agree. also, as net.artists, we do have an interest in OS-browser
> integration.
>
>> And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
>> like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
>
> Not at all. There are other Mac browsers, are there not, made by
> private companies? Same
> principle as with Microsoft, only on a different platform. Clearly it
> isn't the case though that
> the same logic applies to Internet Explorer and the Windows platform.
> Ooooohhhhh no. It walks
> like a duck and it talks like a duck, t.whid. Mac is a smaller duck,
> but a duck no the wat.
>
> What we are witnessing is a change in the perception concerning
> OS-browser integration from 97
> to now. people can see now that those browser controls being
> insertable into applications is an
> important possibility in *meaningful* integration of the net into the
> desktop. This is true for
> the Mac and Windows. i'm not sure how separable the IE renderer is
> from the browser in the
> Active X control. Quite, I would think, given how you can get rid of
> all the browser chrome in
> IE onscreen.
>
>> thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
>
> what i've argued above, t.whid, is that just about all of the features
> you mention that are in
> OSX are also in Windows 98 and IE 6.
>
> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when, in
> fact, they are doing much
> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on their
> respective platforms in
> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
> fairly closely together, as
> they historically have on various projects, including browser
> technology.
tho they are doing similar (not the same thing as the open source
nature of Webcore makes Safari radically different from IE) things, the
practical effects are widely different. I've outlined how Apple's
browser implementation encourages competition where Microsoft's
destroyed competition on Windows.
Microsoft has a monopoly on a commodity: desktop operating systems.
Apple doesn't. If Apple had 97% of the market for desktop OS's many of
their tactics would be illegal and dirty, but they don't, MS does and
almost all their tactics are dirty and i would argue illegal.
maybe Chris Fahey can join this discussion, he's a Windows user, he's
sold out to Satan ;-)
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
> hm, didn't realize this had become a Mac vs. PC thing 'til now. I just
> assume everyone hates MS haha. this tho i work in a windows-centric
> environment.
i'm not particularly emotional about which machine is popular.
they are machines and one does oneself ill by identifying one's personality with them. Neither
Mr Mac nor PC.
if it were a territory thing, you would be canadian, t.ny. the mac pc thang has the same fervor
as a type of nationalism. Mr. Mac attitudes are like Canadian attitudes toward the USA.
we got the beaver that bit the apple and big blue, horvald etc, like most other nations. but the
territoriality is both real and insipid like it is with the PC Mac thang. Perhaps your arg is
canadian expat since you use a windows system?
i don't know. i just find the mac pc fervor tiresome.
> more below:
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> >>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
actually the MS and Apple situations are the same, in some crucial ways, concerning the
development of OS-browser integration.
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> Apple has never made a browser for Windows so I'm not sure what this
> means.
microsoft concedes the Mac browser territory and Apple backs Microsoft in the notion that
OS-browser integration is the way of the future, a must-do by OS companies. thereby
strengthening Microsoft's claim about the value of it on their own OS platform.
> MS's statement that they can't compete on the browser on OSX means
> either one of two things neither of which puts MS in a good light: 1)
> they are admitting that if someone controls the OS than it's easy for
> them to knock out competitors, the field isnt' flat,
as i outlined in my last post, your argument is too simple. clearly different types of browsers
can support different features more easily. even in open source this is true. why couldn't
microsoft develop an OS-integrated IE that does not preclude as many standalone-installation
browsers as you like. And there are browsers for the PC, like Opera, that aren't IE but use
parts of IE. Particularly to exploit OS-integration. And then there are more stand-alone
operations like Netscape. But this will be the same situation standalone browsers on the Mac
will be in–and, similarly, some will use the system components available through OSX.
> or 2) that was
> just bs they made as an excuse to kill off part of the Mac BU at MS. as
> i outlined in my last post Apple's browser implementation makes it
> easier to compete in that area on Mac OSX.
It is a question of where they want to compete. you say the kernel is open but the graphics
engines are not. so they have chosen to compete with the graphics engines and such.
microsoft, on the other hand, competes wherever they smell money.
oh my gawd, can you believe it's bedtime? enough email for this cowboy for a while.
thanks, t.whid.
ja
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 09:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
>>> mind-blowing features that
>>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
>>> net integration. but in
>>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
>>> the feds can't just back
>>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
>>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
>>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
>>> necessarily putting the kibosh
>>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
>>> OS-integrated, perhaps
>>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
>>> what serves the societies of
>>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
>>> continue to support various
>>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
>>> their deeper browser-OS
>>> integration.
>>
>> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
>> imo.
>
> I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> agreement to back off each
> other's browser territory.
and:
>> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when,
>> in fact, they are doing much
>> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on
>> their respective platforms in
>> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
>> fairly closely together, as
>> they historically have on various projects, including browser
>> technology.
LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
doesn't count). Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
out alternative platforms…….(gotta stop, now)
I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
ourselves!" M$ response is, "Fine, we'll kill IE and continue to do
what we've always done by further "embracing" and "extending" the net!"
They'll do this by integrating the browser (thus killing
competition), and then providing "features" and "enhancements" that
tickle the "feature-itis" of web designers who choose not to take a
stance by supporting open standards. They've done this with DirectX
vs. OpenGL, C#.Net vs. Java, etc..
I tend to support the underdog in situations like this because of some
sort of personality quirk ;-) If the roles were reversed I'd support
M$, or Linux, or whatever, primarily because I think the net will be a
more interesting, fulfilling, diverse place the longer we can forestall
homogeneity. The topic of "standards" and "openness" comes up a
lot…do artists/programmers have a responsibility to be aware of the
cultural ramifications of their efforts and tailor their work
accordingly?
Jack
comments below:
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Jack Stenner wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 09:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
>>>> mind-blowing features that
>>>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
>>>> net integration. but in
>>>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
>>>> the feds can't just back
>>>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
>>>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
>>>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
>>>> necessarily putting the kibosh
>>>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
>>>> OS-integrated, perhaps
>>>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
>>>> what serves the societies of
>>>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
>>>> continue to support various
>>>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
>>>> their deeper browser-OS
>>>> integration.
>>>
>>> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
>>> imo.
>>
>> I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
>> agreement to back off each
>> other's browser territory.
>
> and:
>
>>> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when,
>>> in fact, they are doing much
>>> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on
>>> their respective platforms in
>>> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
>>> fairly closely together, as
>>> they historically have on various projects, including browser
>>> technology.
>
hey Jack, thx for making the arg better than I was doing.
> LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
> cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
> exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
> doesn't count). Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
> out alternative platforms…….(gotta stop, now)
>
> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
> ourselves!" M$ response is, "Fine, we'll kill IE and continue to do
> what we've always done by further "embracing" and "extending" the
> net!" They'll do this by integrating the browser (thus killing
> competition), and then providing "features" and "enhancements" that
> tickle the "feature-itis" of web designers who choose not to take a
> stance by supporting open standards. They've done this with DirectX
> vs. OpenGL, C#.Net vs. Java, etc..
>
> I tend to support the underdog in situations like this because of some
> sort of personality quirk ;-) If the roles were reversed I'd support
> M$, or Linux, or whatever, primarily because I think the net will be a
> more interesting, fulfilling, diverse place the longer we can
> forestall homogeneity. The topic of "standards" and "openness" comes
> up a lot…do artists/programmers have a responsibility to be aware of
> the cultural ramifications of their efforts and tailor their work
> accordingly?
i would never knock an artist for making a work IE-only, or
Windows-only, or Linux-only or whatever. since net artists probably
want to reach a large an audience as possible, it makes sense for them
to make something Windows-only if that's all the resources they have at
their disposal. artists are underfunded as it is. we don't have
development teams or other resources to make sure every project works
in every environment (or do as best we can). many of us use Flash and
though the SWF format is technically open that could be changed at
Macromedia's whim. Flash's benefits out-weigh that negative IMO, ditto
for Shockwave.
so, yes, i think artists should be aware of the ramifications but i
would never argue that an artist is under obligation to do anything
with their work, they are the artists afterall. artists dictate what
their work is and how it functions in our society (technically,
socially, economically, politically) i would never attempt to dictate
that one should use open standards or open source authoring tools in
creating one's work.
having said that, the reason that net artists are drawn to Java, Flash,
Director, HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc is that they are all
cross-platform technologies. net artists really don't want to lock
anyone out. they seem more concerned with this then most software
developers.
in my own work (except Flash of course) I try to follow W3C standards
when writing Web code (xhtml, css, javascript). i think it's the right
thing to do purely from a selfish perspective; if everyone is following
standards which aren't tied to any platform or company than the more
freedom we all have in choosing how to live and work in our digital age.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
> >>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
> >>> mind-blowing features that
> >>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
> >>> net integration. but in
> >>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
> >>> the feds can't just back
> >>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
> >>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
> >>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
> >>> necessarily putting the kibosh
> >>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
> >>> OS-integrated, perhaps
> >>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
> >>> what serves the societies of
> >>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
> >>> continue to support various
> >>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
> >>> their deeper browser-OS
> >>> integration.
> >>
> >> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
> >> imo.
> >
> > I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
> > agreement to back off each
> > other's browser territory.
>
> and:
>
> >> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when,
> >> in fact, they are doing much
> >> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on
> >> their respective platforms in
> >> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
> >> fairly closely together, as
> >> they historically have on various projects, including browser
> >> technology.
>
>
> LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
> cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
> exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
> doesn't count).
I still have ns 4.78 on my pc. Because there is some work I like I need this browser to view,
and also to test my work in it, as I do with NS 7.02 and IE 6.
> Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
"purposefully hobbled"…give your head a shake. it's because the person dev-hours that go into
Mac products produced on the level of a browser engineering project do not match the person
dev-hours that go into a project that has 97% of the market. it is not economically feasible to
put the same number of resources on each project. that is why the Mac has been inferior in its
browsers.
> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
> out alternative platforms…….(gotta stop, now)
who you calling lazy, jack? there are interesting DHTML features in IE for the PC that simply
are not supported via, we might as meaningfully state, the lazy Mac developers of IE. It makes
the same insipid lack of sense. fact is the platforms differ substantially in their DHTML
support and not many of us have the opportunity to test on both platforms. so that even
relatively simple commands like window.open have subtle differences in how they react to
parameters and even the sizes of the openable windows. never mind esoteric methods such as
innerHTML. i go where my imagination leads me, mainly. i have no devotion to standards in art
or technology. art is invisible; slips past the borders.
> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
> ourselves!"
Alternatively, they perhaps both realize that the 'next step' for the Mac browser is
OS-integration that MS is not positioned to accomplish for Apple. Once the browser becomes *not*
a standalone installation but something *meaningfully and usefully* part of the OS install, you
can see the dev initiative falls more to the core OS programmers than third party developers
such as msft'ers.
ja
chopping out some of quoft (quoted kruft), comments below:
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>> LOL, cooperation between Apple and Microsoft. The last time there was
>> cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, Apple took home $150 mil in
>> exchange for Apple bundling IE on every Mac sold (farewell NS...NS/AOL
>> doesn't count).
>
> I still have ns 4.78 on my pc. Because there is some work I like I
> need this browser to view,
> and also to test my work in it, as I do with NS 7.02 and IE 6.
>
>> Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
>> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
>> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
>> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
>
> "purposefully hobbled"…give your head a shake. it's because the
> person dev-hours that go into
> Mac products produced on the level of a browser engineering project do
> not match the person
> dev-hours that go into a project that has 97% of the market. it is not
> economically feasible to
> put the same number of resources on each project. that is why the Mac
> has been inferior in its
> browsers.
that was his point. the code was there in Windows IE, why not port it
over? luckily we've had Mozilla so OSX has had plenty of good browsers.
IE has been the crappiest browser on OSX since OSX was released, most
of those in the know were using Camino (formerly Chimera) up until
Safari came out.
>
>> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
>> out alternative platforms…….(gotta stop, now)
>
> who you calling lazy, jack? there are interesting DHTML features in IE
> for the PC that simply
> are not supported via, we might as meaningfully state, the lazy Mac
> developers of IE. It makes
> the same insipid lack of sense. fact is the platforms differ
> substantially in their DHTML
> support and not many of us have the opportunity to test on both
> platforms. so that even
> relatively simple commands like window.open have subtle differences in
> how they react to
> parameters and even the sizes of the openable windows. never mind
> esoteric methods such as
> innerHTML. i go where my imagination leads me, mainly. i have no
> devotion to standards in art
> or technology. art is invisible; slips past the borders.
>
>> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
>> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
>> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
>> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
>> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
>> ourselves!"
>
> Alternatively, they perhaps both realize that the 'next step' for the
> Mac browser is
> OS-integration that MS is not positioned to accomplish for Apple. Once
> the browser becomes *not*
> a standalone installation but something *meaningfully and usefully*
> part of the OS install, you
> can see the dev initiative falls more to the core OS programmers than
> third party developers
> such as msft'ers.
>
yes but at the same time that Apple is aggressively developing it's own
standalone browser, MS is saying that they are killing ALL standalone
versions of IE! as i've repeated over and over, only the HTML-rendering
and Javascript engines will be integrated into Mac OSX, the Safari
browser is still STANDALONE! this is the *opposite* of what MS is doing
on Windows (tho it seems similar). Hope you got the hundreds of bucks
it'll take you to upgrade to Longhorn (and the hardware to run it)
because that's the only way you will EVER get meaningful new browser
tech on Windows. not to mention waiting until 2005 to get it.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 02:43 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>> Mac users have been saddled with a fairly standards
>> compliant, yet feature poor, slow rendering, and buggy browsing
>> experience ever since. IE Javascript and Java integration (not
>> invented at M$) seem to be purposefully hobbled in the Mac version.
>
> "purposefully hobbled"…give your head a shake. it's because the
> person dev-hours that go into
> Mac products produced on the level of a browser engineering project do
> not match the person
> dev-hours that go into a project that has 97% of the market. it is not
> economically feasible to
> put the same number of resources on each project. that is why the Mac
> has been inferior in its
> browsers.
When the same features work in the Windows version, yet are never
addressed in the Mac version in 5+ years? Economically feasible? The
browsers are free. The Mac Business Unit (responsible for Mac IE) is
owned by the same deep-pocketed company that can afford to conquer the
market with a free browser. I think they could afford to solve the
Mac/IE deficiencies.
An example would be LiveConnect…..Java to Javascript communication.
Never worked in IE/Mac, though it worked in Mozilla/Netscape/Mac.
Worked fine in IE/PC, but since LiveConnect isn't a M$ technology they
certainly didn't want it working across PC/Mac on IE.
>
>> Meanwhile lazy web designers cater to M$ specific "features" that lock
>> out alternative platforms…….(gotta stop, now)
>
> who you calling lazy, jack? there are interesting DHTML features in IE
> for the PC that simply
> are not supported via, we might as meaningfully state, the lazy Mac
> developers of IE. It makes
> the same insipid lack of sense. fact is the platforms differ
> substantially in their DHTML
> support and not many of us have the opportunity to test on both
> platforms. so that even
> relatively simple commands like window.open have subtle differences in
> how they react to
> parameters and even the sizes of the openable windows. never mind
> esoteric methods such as
> innerHTML. i go where my imagination leads me, mainly. i have no
> devotion to standards in art
> or technology.
Sorry about that, didn't mean to imply YOU are lazy! I was referring
to the many programmers I know who invariably take the path of least
resistance without considering the ramifications of their
decisions….they simply follow the $.
> art is invisible; slips past the borders.
Absolutely, just concerned what else slips in, unnoticed :-)
>
>> I don't think that what Apple is doing with Safari can be compared to
>> what M$ wants to do via "browser/OS integration." In terms of it's
>> relationship to the OS, Safari is little more than a replacement for
>> the subpar M$ Mac IE implementation. Apple is saying, "Ok M$, if you
>> aren't going to provide us with a suitable browser, we'll make one
>> ourselves!"
>
> Alternatively, they perhaps both realize that the 'next step' for the
> Mac browser is
> OS-integration that MS is not positioned to accomplish for Apple. Once
> the browser becomes *not*
> a standalone installation but something *meaningfully and usefully*
> part of the OS install, you
> can see the dev initiative falls more to the core OS programmers than
> third party developers
> such as msft'ers.
I'm not so concerned about OS specific widgets, glommed on top of the
browser (think Office). I'm concerned when there is less competition
and M$ (or whomever) begins to introduce basic functionality that locks
competitors out of the network. An example might be html tags that
only work with their browser (or work differently than they do on other
platforms). I recall the Mac OS Classic days when a trip to certain
websites would completely lock my machine….it doesn't have to be that
way.
I don't know, maybe a fractured Internet with OS specific zones (rather
than an inclusive web) isn't such a bad thing….who knows…we could
stick AOL in the PC zone ;-) …just kidding.
Jack
BTW, I'm not some doom-sayer, afraid of progress. I just see the
pendulum swinging more towards large corporations rather than
individuals, and a public that doesn't often care. Usually these
things even out over time, hopefully.
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 02:35 PM, t.whid wrote:
>> I tend to support the underdog in situations like this because of
>> some sort of personality quirk ;-) If the roles were reversed I'd
>> support M$, or Linux, or whatever, primarily because I think the net
>> will be a more interesting, fulfilling, diverse place the longer we
>> can forestall homogeneity. The topic of "standards" and "openness"
>> comes up a lot…do artists/programmers have a responsibility to be
>> aware of the cultural ramifications of their efforts and tailor their
>> work accordingly?
>
> i would never knock an artist for making a work IE-only, or
> Windows-only, or Linux-only or whatever. since net artists probably
> want to reach a large an audience as possible, it makes sense for them
> to make something Windows-only if that's all the resources they have
> at their disposal. artists are underfunded as it is. we don't have
> development teams or other resources to make sure every project works
> in every environment (or do as best we can). many of us use Flash and
> though the SWF format is technically open that could be changed at
> Macromedia's whim. Flash's benefits out-weigh that negative IMO, ditto
> for Shockwave.
>
> so, yes, i think artists should be aware of the ramifications but i
> would never argue that an artist is under obligation to do anything
> with their work, they are the artists afterall. artists dictate what
> their work is and how it functions in our society (technically,
> socially, economically, politically) i would never attempt to dictate
> that one should use open standards or open source authoring tools in
> creating one's work.
Nahhh, we need some sort of net.art artist's license, so irresponsible
artists can be punished when they mess up ;-) 5 years for
"inappropriate use of FrontPage extensions" ;-)
>
> having said that, the reason that net artists are drawn to Java,
> Flash, Director, HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc is that they are all
> cross-platform technologies. net artists really don't want to lock
> anyone out. they seem more concerned with this then most software
> developers.
Agreed! In my experience, artists tend to be concerned with this
issue, but many (not all) programmers are either oblivious to the "big
picture" ramifications of their choices, or in some cases, are actually
hostile to the thought that a standards based environment might be
better than a single platform system.
>
> in my own work (except Flash of course) I try to follow W3C standards
> when writing Web code (xhtml, css, javascript). i think it's the right
> thing to do purely from a selfish perspective; if everyone is
> following standards which aren't tied to any platform or company than
> the more freedom we all have in choosing how to live and work in our
> digital age.
As artists, I think that's the best we can do….
I'm afraid we have to rely on programmers to demand that M$ follow
standards in order to avoid absorption by Redmond. It's certain the
"Bushies" won't deal with the issue…they're still deluded that the
"market economy" will produce the best computing experience.
Jack
Although I am a Mac user it is understandable that if less than 2% of the IE
market is Mac that they would consider cutting the high costs of development
for future versions.
on 6/15/03 12:31 PM, t.whid at [email protected] wrote:
> hm, didn't realize this had become a Mac vs. PC thing 'til now. I just
> assume everyone hates MS haha. this tho i work in a windows-centric
> environment.
>
> more below:
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:16 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I am against the forces of dullness and monopoly. But I am way for
>>>> mind-blowing features that
>>>> transform the mind and experience, transform the desktop into strong
>>>> net integration. but in
>>>> certain ways. not necessarily as microsoft would have it. more open.
>>>> the feds can't just back
>>>> off. they need to be concerned about this recent development where
>>>> Microsoft and Apple attempt
>>>> together to turn the browser into an OS-specific application. Not
>>>> necessarily putting the kibosh
>>>> on it, but keeping the possibility of other browsers–perhaps not
>>>> OS-integrated, perhaps
>>>> OS-integrated, as a possibility. That'd be their job to figure out
>>>> what serves the societies of
>>>> the world best, not Microsoft and Apple. I think as long as they
>>>> continue to support various
>>>> protocols that *are* supportable in other browsers, they will get
>>>> their deeper browser-OS
>>>> integration.
>>>
>>> I'm going to defend Apple as to compare MS and Apple is kinda wacky
>>> imo.
>>
>> I see the issue as a cooperation between Apple and Microsoft, an
>> agreement to back off each
>> other's browser territory.
>
> Apple has never made a browser for Windows so I'm not sure what this
> means.
>
> MS's statement that they can't compete on the browser on OSX means
> either one of two things neither of which puts MS in a good light: 1)
> they are admitting that if someone controls the OS than it's easy for
> them to knock out competitors, the field isnt' flat, or 2) that was
> just bs they made as an excuse to kill off part of the Mac BU at MS. as
> i outlined in my last post Apple's browser implementation makes it
> easier to compete in that area on Mac OSX.
>
>>
>>> there is a big difference btw the way Apple and Microsoft integrate
>>> the
>>> browser into the OS.
>>>
>>> First, there is a big difference btw the browser and the rendering
>>> engine. the browser gives you all the features of web browsing like a
>>> way to save bookmarks, kill pop-ups, delete cookies, and etc.
>>
>> there are windows popup killers. spy killers. spam assassins and
>> knowbots. a scurvy lot, for the
>> most part.
>>
>> and of course you can save bookmarks and delete cookies in IE for the
>> PC.
>
> i don't think you caught my meaning. the rendering engine does just
> that, renders HTML, whereas the browser adds all the bells and whistles
> around it. That's how all browsers work regardless of platform.
>
>>
>>> the
>>> rendering engine is just part of the software.
>>
>> which software? the OS? or a separate renderer?
>
> i was meaning the browser, the rendering engine is just one part of a
> browser.
>
>>
>> there are various levels of access to CPU cycles, and different
>> languages have farther to go
>> through protocols and APIs between their requests and the CPU. the
>> deeper into the OS you can
>> get in the first step, the shorter the computation time. in short,
>> renderers need all the juice
>> they can get, and you get that with OS-integration.
>>
>> you also get security headaches because there's always some backdoor
>> into the OS through the
>> browser.
>>
>> Is OSX open source itself? I doubt it, somehow.
>
> OSX's kernal, called Darwin (it's even been ported to pentium-class
> processors
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html), is
> open source (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/). the graphics layer,
> Quartz, is not open source, but you can install other windowing systems
> on OSX, like X11 (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/X11/)
> which is open source.
>
>>
>>> There are tons of ways
>>> MS could have delivered basic web rendering (or even extremely
>>> advanced
>>> web rendering) to their OS w/out killing off Netscape.
>>
>> Microsoft did not engineer Netscape 6, which sucked. Netscape chose
>> not to support their own
>> layer tag and not to support a too wide range of the DOM. People came
>> to hate Netscape 6 not for
>> what Microsoft did to Netscape but what AOL did to Netscape. There was
>> dev despair radiating
>> illness in that browser. the netscape developers–their job had been
>> to change the world. now
>> they were working–or had since quit–for AOL and being tarted up and
>> market-driven rather than
>> engineering driven, and with a smaller team.
>
> i agree Netscape 6 wasn't all that great. but it did have good
> standards support. the issue was moot by the time it hit the street
> anyway and it didn't help itself at all. they killed off the layer tag
> because it's not a standard, that was a good thing to have happen.
>
> i'm fairly certain that netscape supports the standard DOM. actually,
> they make a pretty good case that they have the best support:
> http://wp.netscape.com/browsers/future/standards.html (those charts
> were creating using IE 5.5, 6 is a bit better)
>
>>
>> when marketing has too strong a hand in an engineering venture, what
>> gets engineered is fantasy.
>>
>>> The rendering engine, Webcore, is open source on OSX and is one of the
>>> most standards-compliant engines around. In fact, the guy who is the
>>> main developer on Webcore has a blog where you can bug him about bugs
>>> and chat with him about features. As opposed to Win/IE which IS NOT
>>> open source;
>>
>> Yes, well, he isn't the only one on such a team, I hope.
>>
>> it's true that microsoft works behind closely guarded walls. they are
>> proud paranoiacs.
>
> which will be their eventual downfall, let us hope. vive la unix!
>
>>
>> but maintaining the integrity of source code is a big job, even bigger
>> in open source. obviously
>> it cannot be without certain flexible but sound security mechanisms so
>> that code is accessed
>> securely and reviewed by a larger team and is widely tested and
>> refined in accepted engineering
>> practice.
>>
>>> uses tons of proprietary tags;
>>
>> that isn't a problem unless developers choose to use them, knowing
>> they are proprietary.
>
> and they do, all the damn time!
>
>> i used
>> the innerHTML tag, which is not in the DOM but is supported to some
>> extent, nonetheless, by
>> Netscape 6 and 7 (though not in exactly the same way). why? it's a
>> cool tag. did the stir fry
>> texts with it (which don't run on the Mac either).
>
> see! :-)
>
>>
>> the functionality of IE for the PC is pretty funky.
>>
>>> allows funky syntax;
>>
>> That is actually a virtue of it.
>
> well no, it's not. it's a virtue for those who like to think that
> Windows is the only platform. the lazy developer simply writes for IE
> and tho it's crap code, it renders fine in IE, but it doesn't work
> properly in other browsers. it could work properly if someone would
> write it correctly.
>
>>
>>> and,
>>> tho 6 is OK in this area, doesn't fully support some standards (CSS
>>> and
>>> PNG).
>>
>> Is there a PC browser as advanced as IE in its CSS support?
>
> sure, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera (a chart detailing CSS support: (not for
> the faint of heart)
> http://macedition.com/cb/resources/abridgedcsssupport.html) and IE has
> some serious problems with CSS support, the main one being lack of
> support for position: fixed and if you don't include a doctype, it gets
> the box model wrong (pain in the ass that one, 5.5 gets it wrong
> regardless).
>
>>
>>> (and don't get me started on frontpage).
>>
>> I use Dreamweaver and notepad.
>>
>>> There is already
>>> competing browser which make use of the rendering engine (Omniweb) on
>>> OSX and the way Apple has structured it in the OS it will be extremely
>>> easy for almost anyone to make their own browser. Their not killing
>>> any
>>> competition, they're encouraging it.
>>
>> t.whid, you are not aware of the IE Active X control that developers
>> can insert into their
>> applications. This control allows developers to do just what you are
>> describing on the PC and
>> has been around for quite a while: since IE 4–that was a big part of
>> OS-integration–so that
>> the system always had a OLE compliant Active X control for whatever
>> application wanted one at
>> run-time.
>
> no, i'm well aware that it's very simple to imbed IE into applications
> on Windows. tons of apps use it.
>
> so why did they have to kill off Netscape? why not simply have this
> available as an OS feature for developers? why not open up the code?
>
> it's a very different thing to have open source Webcore on OSX as part
> of your application than to have the closed imbedded IE. if MS decides
> to change something in IE that fux yer app what are you to do? in the
> open source world you simply change the code to the way you like it and
> start distributing it with your code instead of the one that has
> changed.
>
>>
>>> I think it makes sense to have web rendering built into the OS. It's a
>>> service of the OS like any other, like, it would be weird if you
>>> needed
>>> a 3rd party app to print to a laser printer, ya know?
>>
>> i agree. also, as net.artists, we do have an interest in OS-browser
>> integration.
>>
>>> And yea, Apple has a monopoly over the Macintosh platform, but that's
>>> like saying Ford has a monopoly on Thunderbirds.
>>
>> Not at all. There are other Mac browsers, are there not, made by
>> private companies? Same
>> principle as with Microsoft, only on a different platform. Clearly it
>> isn't the case though that
>> the same logic applies to Internet Explorer and the Windows platform.
>> Ooooohhhhh no. It walks
>> like a duck and it talks like a duck, t.whid. Mac is a smaller duck,
>> but a duck no the wat.
>>
>> What we are witnessing is a change in the perception concerning
>> OS-browser integration from 97
>> to now. people can see now that those browser controls being
>> insertable into applications is an
>> important possibility in *meaningful* integration of the net into the
>> desktop. This is true for
>> the Mac and Windows. i'm not sure how separable the IE renderer is
>> from the browser in the
>> Active X control. Quite, I would think, given how you can get rid of
>> all the browser chrome in
>> IE onscreen.
>>
>>> thanks for chatting about the geek stuff Jim.
>>
>> what i've argued above, t.whid, is that just about all of the features
>> you mention that are in
>> OSX are also in Windows 98 and IE 6.
>
>>
>> i think you're mistaken to defend Apple and censure Microsoft when, in
>> fact, they are doing much
>> the same: building OS-integrated browsers that will be unique on their
>> respective platforms in
>> their role in the desktop. and of course they will probably work
>> fairly closely together, as
>> they historically have on various projects, including browser
>> technology.
>
> tho they are doing similar (not the same thing as the open source
> nature of Webcore makes Safari radically different from IE) things, the
> practical effects are widely different. I've outlined how Apple's
> browser implementation encourages competition where Microsoft's
> destroyed competition on Windows.
>
> Microsoft has a monopoly on a commodity: desktop operating systems.
> Apple doesn't. If Apple had 97% of the market for desktop OS's many of
> their tactics would be illegal and dirty, but they don't, MS does and
> almost all their tactics are dirty and i would argue illegal.
>
> maybe Chris Fahey can join this discussion, he's a Windows user, he's
> sold out to Satan ;-)
> –
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>