Bizarre MS website - Linux

This is a discussion on Bizarre MS website - Linux ; http://www.defyallchallenges.com/...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Bizarre MS website

  1. Bizarre MS website


  2. Re: Bizarre MS website

    DFS :
    > http://www.defyallchallenges.com/


    That's surprisingly cool.


    --
    Halt!! Who goes there, friend or enema?

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  3. Re: Bizarre MS website

    [H]omer :
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Handover Phist spake thusly:
    >> DFS :
    >>> http://www.defyallchallenges.com/

    >>
    >> That's surprisingly cool.

    >
    > What's even more surprising is that they chose to use Adobe's technology
    > to build that site, rather than their own Silverlight.


    Adobe's had an extra 10 years to make Flash work, while Silverlight will
    probably sit in beta until ver.10.6.3.

    --
    MY BOSS IS A JERK

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  4. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:12:43 GMT, Handover Phist wrote:

    > [H]omer :
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Handover Phist spake thusly:
    >>> DFS :
    >>>> http://www.defyallchallenges.com/
    >>>
    >>> That's surprisingly cool.

    >>
    >> What's even more surprising is that they chose to use Adobe's technology
    >> to build that site, rather than their own Silverlight.

    >
    > Adobe's had an extra 10 years to make Flash work, while Silverlight will
    > probably sit in beta until ver.10.6.3.


    Silverlight is quite mature.

    The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    Flash than silverlight at this point in time.

  5. Re: Bizarre MS website

    Erik Funkenbusch :
    > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:12:43 GMT, Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    >> [H]omer :
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Handover Phist spake thusly:
    >>>> DFS :
    >>>>> http://www.defyallchallenges.com/
    >>>>
    >>>> That's surprisingly cool.
    >>>
    >>> What's even more surprising is that they chose to use Adobe's technology
    >>> to build that site, rather than their own Silverlight.

    >>
    >> Adobe's had an extra 10 years to make Flash work, while Silverlight will
    >> probably sit in beta until ver.10.6.3.

    >
    > Silverlight is quite mature.
    >
    > The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    > few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    > Flash than silverlight at this point in time.


    It's hard to slag MS when you go saying things like that .

    --
    children know everything

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  6. Re: Bizarre MS website

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:12:43 GMT, Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    >> [H]omer :
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Handover Phist spake thusly:
    >>>> DFS :
    >>>>> http://www.defyallchallenges.com/
    >>>>
    >>>> That's surprisingly cool.
    >>>
    >>> What's even more surprising is that they chose to use Adobe's technology
    >>> to build that site, rather than their own Silverlight.

    >>
    >> Adobe's had an extra 10 years to make Flash work, while Silverlight will
    >> probably sit in beta until ver.10.6.3.

    >
    > Silverlight is quite mature.


    As in "beta"?

    > The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    > few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    > Flash than silverlight at this point in time.


    A silly argument. If Silverlight is "quite mature", people should be
    able to download and install it "toot sweet".

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Bizarre MS website

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    > > few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    > > Flash than silverlight at this point in time.

    >
    > A silly argument. If Silverlight is "quite mature", people should be
    > able to download and install it "toot sweet".


    They ALREADY HAVE Flash installed. You get more people entering your
    site if they do NOT have to go through an install first. This is also
    why you would not use Java applets for a site like this one--Java
    applets are "quite mature", and anyone can download and install a JVM
    and browser plug-in if they don't have one. But you'd have to be insane
    to make an applet-based site when the purpose of that site is to
    advertise your product.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: Bizarre MS website

    Tim Smith :
    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    >> > few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    >> > Flash than silverlight at this point in time.

    >>
    >> A silly argument. If Silverlight is "quite mature", people should be
    >> able to download and install it "toot sweet".

    >
    > They ALREADY HAVE Flash installed. You get more people entering your
    > site if they do NOT have to go through an install first. This is also
    > why you would not use Java applets for a site like this one--Java
    > applets are "quite mature", and anyone can download and install a JVM
    > and browser plug-in if they don't have one. But you'd have to be insane
    > to make an applet-based site when the purpose of that site is to
    > advertise your product.


    Dude, Adobe totally has a monopoly .

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  9. Re: Bizarre MS website

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Handover Phist belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Tim Smith :
    >> In article ,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> > The issue right now is one of market share. Everyone has flash installed,
    >>> > few people have Silverlight installed, therefore it makes more sense to use
    >>> > Flash than silverlight at this point in time.
    >>>
    >>> A silly argument. If Silverlight is "quite mature", people should be
    >>> able to download and install it "toot sweet".

    >>
    >> They ALREADY HAVE Flash installed. You get more people entering your
    >> site if they do NOT have to go through an install first. This is also
    >> why you would not use Java applets for a site like this one--Java
    >> applets are "quite mature", and anyone can download and install a JVM
    >> and browser plug-in if they don't have one. But you'd have to be insane
    >> to make an applet-based site when the purpose of that site is to
    >> advertise your product.

    >
    > Dude, Adobe totally has a monopoly .


    Besides, one always gets a prompt for installing a new codec or whatever
    needed to view a resource. It is quite common as you first run your
    system. Then you clicky-click and goee-go.

    And this download would have the advantage of shiny-new technology for
    the consumer, trusted content from Microsoft. Who would balk at that?

    In any case, I'm not sure Tim is making a strong point here. My guess
    is that Silverlight is not quite ready for life in the wild. And I do
    mean "wild".

    --
    [X] Check here to always trust content from Linonut

  10. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:08:19 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >> Dude, Adobe totally has a monopoly .

    >
    > Besides, one always gets a prompt for installing a new codec or whatever
    > needed to view a resource. It is quite common as you first run your
    > system. Then you clicky-click and goee-go.
    >
    > And this download would have the advantage of shiny-new technology for
    > the consumer, trusted content from Microsoft. Who would balk at that?


    The problem is that Silverlight relies on the .NET framework, which means
    that if that is not installed, then it will require a 25MB download. Also,
    the Silverlight download itself is pretty hefty.

    This is not something Microsoft can easily overcome in a short period of
    time.

    > In any case, I'm not sure Tim is making a strong point here. My guess
    > is that Silverlight is not quite ready for life in the wild. And I do
    > mean "wild".


    There's nothing wrong with silverlight, other than it's lack of installed
    base right now.

  11. Re: Bizarre MS website

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:08:19 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> And this download would have the advantage of shiny-new technology for
    >> the consumer, trusted content from Microsoft. Who would balk at that?

    >
    > The problem is that Silverlight relies on the .NET framework, which means
    > that if that is not installed, then it will require a 25MB download. Also,
    > the Silverlight download itself is pretty hefty.
    >
    > This is not something Microsoft can easily overcome in a short period of
    > time.


    That makes sense, except that .NET would already be installed on most
    Windows machines, via updates, wouldn't it?

    >> In any case, I'm not sure Tim is making a strong point here. My guess
    >> is that Silverlight is not quite ready for life in the wild. And I do
    >> mean "wild".

    >
    > There's nothing wrong with silverlight, other than it's lack of installed
    > base right now.


    Let's hope it stays that way. We have too many steenking Microsoft
    formats already! Cancerous!

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:26:08 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:08:19 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> And this download would have the advantage of shiny-new technology for
    >>> the consumer, trusted content from Microsoft. Who would balk at that?

    >>
    >> The problem is that Silverlight relies on the .NET framework, which means
    >> that if that is not installed, then it will require a 25MB download. Also,
    >> the Silverlight download itself is pretty hefty.
    >>
    >> This is not something Microsoft can easily overcome in a short period of
    >> time.

    >
    > That makes sense, except that .NET would already be installed on most
    > Windows machines, via updates, wouldn't it?


    It's an optional update. Having had to ship .NET applications, I can tell
    you that unless they had some reason to have it installed in the past, or
    ar running Vista, they probably won't have .NET installed.

    And, since this is targeting new develoeprs who aren't using Visual Studio,
    it's even more unlikely they won't have it.

    >> There's nothing wrong with silverlight, other than it's lack of installed
    >> base right now.

    >
    > Let's hope it stays that way. We have too many steenking Microsoft
    > formats already! Cancerous!


    XAML is in the process of being standardized.

  13. Re: Bizarre MS website

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > It's an optional update. Having had to ship .NET applications, I can tell
    > you that unless they had some reason to have it installed in the past, or
    > ar running Vista, they probably won't have .NET installed.
    >
    > And, since this is targeting new develoeprs who aren't using Visual Studio,
    > it's even more unlikely they won't have it.


    Okay, understood.

    >>> There's nothing wrong with silverlight, other than it's lack of installed
    >>> base right now.

    >>
    >> Let's hope it stays that way. We have too many steenking Microsoft
    >> formats already! Cancerous!

    >
    > XAML is in the process of being standardized.


    S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").

    Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    about using their formats.

    --
    Say hello to my little friend! Grease Gun (patent pending)>

  14. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:

    >> XAML is in the process of being standardized.

    >
    > S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >
    > Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    > similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    > about using their formats.


    So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    undocumented format?

  15. Re: Bizarre MS website

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> XAML is in the process of being standardized.

    >>
    >> S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >>
    >> Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    >> similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    >> about using their formats.

    >
    > So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    > (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    > undocumented format?


    Reading comprehension problems, Erik?
    --
    Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
    And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...


  16. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:41:14 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>>> XAML is in the process of being standardized.
    >>>
    >>> S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >>>
    >>> Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    >>> similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    >>> about using their formats.

    >>
    >> So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    >> (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    >> undocumented format?

    >
    > Reading comprehension problems, Erik?


    Not at all. He seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if Microsoft
    documents and standardizes their formats. I disagree.

    I find it odd that the same people that have been bitching and moaning
    about how MS hasn't documented their formats, complain even louder when
    they do, even when they turn them over to a standards body.

  17. Re: Bizarre MS website

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:41:14 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> XAML is in the process of being standardized.
    >>>>
    >>>> S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    >>>> similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    >>>> about using their formats.
    >>>
    >>> So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    >>> (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    >>> undocumented format?

    >>
    >> Reading comprehension problems, Erik?

    >
    > Not at all. He seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if Microsoft
    > documents and standardizes their formats. I disagree.


    So yes, you *do* have reading comprehension problems, Erik

    > I find it odd that the same people that have been bitching and moaning
    > about how MS hasn't documented their formats, complain even louder when
    > they do, even when they turn them over to a standards body.


    I find it odd to see someone with severe reading comprehension problems
    finding something odd which he didn't understand in the first place

    --
    If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?


  18. Re: Bizarre MS website

    On Oct 17, 3:19 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > http://www.defyallchallenges.com/


    This is the main problem with the web. Morons (not DFS), in this case
    Microsoft, using formats like flash to create websites. HTML is so far
    the only acceptable format. Why? Try to go into a website with flash
    if you happen to be visually impaired.

    If silverlight happens to have a good support for voice synthesis,
    then I see that as a viable option, otherwise, it is just another crap
    software, like flash, that shouldn't have been made. These kinds of
    things pollute internet and are making life harder for visually
    impaired.

    There are possibilities, to create flash sites that are adopted for
    speech synthesis, but it is scarcely used.

    /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok


  19. Re: Bizarre MS website

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> XAML is in the process of being standardized.

    >>
    >> S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >>
    >> Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    >> similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    >> about using their formats.

    >
    > So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    > (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    > undocumented format?


    No, jerkwad. It's my opinion that the well-document behavior of a few
    scumbags in Microsoft makes me not trust the company as a business.

    --
    Tux rox!

  20. Re: Bizarre MS website

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:46:12 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:41:14 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:45:09 GMT, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> XAML is in the process of being standardized.
    >>>>
    >>>> S.O.S. (and I don't mean "help").
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe if Microsoft gets rid of Sweaty Ballmer and any other
    >>>> similar malign thugs in that organization, I can feel better
    >>>> about using their formats.
    >>>
    >>> So it's your intention that a well documented, and standardized format
    >>> (even if by an industry standards body) is worse than a proprietary
    >>> undocumented format?

    >>
    >> Reading comprehension problems, Erik?

    >
    > Not at all. He seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if Microsoft
    > documents and standardizes their formats. I disagree.
    >


    No, he's saying he doesn't trust Ballmer and the like.

    You really do have reading comprehension problems don't you? it's not
    just and act?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHGkq9d90bcYOAWPYRAgFuAKDxUfTjRtFY5ugXlmHkUS qUiPR6XgCePy3T
    +liZzOMy8cKPiddBdlFUJKU=
    =wmN7
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast