Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boston Globe to Blogger — "Stop Using Opera"

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the what-part-of-'modern'-do-you-not-understand dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 465

PetManimal writes "Mac Daniels of the Boston Globe weighed in on a prickly debate involving the updated local mass transit website. The Globe's advice to one complainer named 'derspatchel': Stop using Opera. Derspatchel's response is to go medieval on Daniels' ass, and ask the question: Why should Opera users give up their browser? Quoting: 'I don't give two whoops about the "percentage of the Internet population" or whatever. I don't care if a website works on someone else's choice of browser; I care if it works or not on my choice of browser. It's a modern browser, it's in active development, and it's free. Once dev stops on the Opera browser and the last version becomes outdated and unable to support newer Web innovations, then I'll "stop using it." How's that, Chuckles?'" After a day the transit authority took the new site offline to "improve performance," reverting to the old version.

cancel ×

465 comments

Protected blog, full text of post (5, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274470)

I posted on his blog that he was about to be Slashdotted and he protected the post, probably so he wouldn't receive an assload of comments, which is fair. For context, though, here's the full post as I got there before it was protected:

Apparently my last post about the problems I experienced with the new MBTA web site punched some people in the goolies or something. Apparently my complaints about the site aren't valid because I like using the Opera browser. Apparently I shouldn't be using Opera because, as someone on the Universal Hub said, "Opera is only .6% of the internet population. Opera is also known for being buggy." (Firefox is known for memory leaks; IE is known for being susceptible to exploits. What's your point?)

And Mac Daniel, who apparently gets paid to blog for the Globe, has this apparently helpful pearl of wisdom for me, nicely writ up with the Imperial First Person Plural:

        Then there's this guy who uses the Opera browser and doesn't like things one bit. Our suggestion? Stop using Opera.

Wow! Awesome! Thanks for that helpful nugget of advice there, chief! That kind of knee-jerk bullshit response is about as annoying as the zealots on certain tech boards who answer every question about a Windows problem with "INSTALL LINUX, PROBLEM SOLVED." Basically it means "I have nothing helpful to contribute, but I just thought I'd act like a douchebag anyway."

Not that I've ever had any experience with that before.

So, uh, got any more advice for me, Mac? You were so helpful with the technical problems I wonder if you can help me out with other things in my life. Should I wear the black pants, or the brown? Which Law & Order series should I follow? Should I put the 60-watt bulb in this lamp, or go for the 75-watt? What wine would you recommend with this steak? I have dropped my glass of water on the floor (I am terribly sorry), what should I do? Is that strange high-pitched buzz coming from the fluorescent lighting, or something outside?

I don't give two whoops about the "percentage of the Internet population" or whatever. I don't care if a website works on someone else's choice of browser; I care if it works or not on my choice of browser. It's a modern browser, it's in active development, and it's free. Once dev stops on the Opera browser and the last version becomes outdated and unable to support newer Web innovations, then I'll "stop using it." How's that, Chuckles?

I've been following the development of this browser since 2001. I found its interface clean, it was the first browser I saw that featured tabbed browsing, and I enjoy some of its more interesting navigational features (mouse gestures are somewhat helpful, but using mouse button combinations to move back or forward a page is just great.) I've tried Firefox before. I've tried it at several times during its development cycle, actually, from when it leaked memory like a sieve to when it merely dripped memory like a leaky faucet. It looked okay, but it wasn't for me. I didn't want to have to search through acres of plugins to find the ones that would make Firefox do what Opera already did out of the box.

Let's get back to the point: I think the MBTA website redesign has a lot of great new features. It's a far cry better than the version they had up before. The Google map integration is excellent, and I like the detailed information on the stations and stops (with all connections listed and stuff.)

The site just doesn't play well with all browsers. Sure, you can't guarantee your new website with up-to-date features will work well with every browser (You'll notice Adam Gaffin tried the site in lynx before I got the chance to) but I'm sorry. Opera is a valid, "modern" browser. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean nobody should.

Ron Newman has no problems with the site when he views it in Opera (are you using a Mac or PC, Ron?) so there's hope there. Maybe there's a problem with the XP version. Maybe there are some preferences I can fiddle with to keep those menu windows from staying open all the time (though a cursory check thru didn't turn up anything that should have been enabled in the first place.) And maybe people could freakin' read for content when I said I don't mind firing up IE to look at the website when I need to. It's just disappointing when you have to do that, because you shouldn't have to do that. Whatever.

I was so trying to avoid turning this into a web browser war, but apparently some folks just can't help but wind up and hock a few loogies across the bow. Thanks for all your really helpful help, you helpers, you. Go pound sand.

Re:Protected blog, full text of post (4, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274646)

He's clearly ranting, and it doesn't all make sense.

If he doesn't care if pages work in someone else choice of browser why would anyone care if they work in his?

Personally, I do care that data which is presented as being a 'web page' should, in fact, be a web page. Web pages work in any browser, barring browser bugs.

So the question for me is, does this page not work in opera because the page is wrong, or because of a bug in Opera? I haven't used Opera in a long time, but it used to be a very solid browser with very few bugs when I used it, and I suspect it still is. Nonetheless, generalities don't solve the problem, specifics do. Is Opera correctly displaying a broken page, or is it displaying a good page improperly?

The page in question is far [w3.org] from a good web page, which reïnforces my suspicion, but still, does anyone know exactly the issue in question here?

Re:Protected blog, full text of post (5, Interesting)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274796)

I note from your W3C validator link that several bits of what look like code are commented out, notably items 16 and 18 on the W3C page. It seems possible that the problem lies there.

Re:Protected blog, full text of post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274908)

Oddly enough, your link shows their page has 40 errors. Antiwar.com, the page you support by claiming it as your homepage, has 258 errors. Go ahead and check my homepage... here, I'll even link it for you... skorchedearth [w3.org] .

Re:Protected blog, full text of post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274994)

Dude, read the fucking summary even. That's the old page - NOT the new one in question.

Re:Protected blog, full text of post (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275082)

Actually it was the old page, it seems that they have reverted to the old one, however.

Weird response. Weird summary too. (-1, Offtopic)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274474)

The livejournal link doesn't work:
Error
You must be logged in to view this protected entry.

Re:Weird response. Weird summary too. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274504)

Which browser are you using?

Re:Weird response. Weird summary too. (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274570)

I think he said NetPositive.

Not Opera (5, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274476)

At least 3 other people using Opera 9.0+ comment on the complainer's blog to say they have no problems. Now, that's still no justification or reason for saying "don't use Opera," but I don't think this problem is really with Opera in the first place.

Sorry for the serious comment in an "It's funny. Laugh." story ;)

Re:Not Opera (1)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274508)

The way I read it wasn't as a general "Everyone should stop using Opera." Instead it seemed more as advice for this particular situation where the person in question should not use Opera for the site since his computer has problems with it.

Re:Not Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274568)

I've never used Opera and I could care less if it exists. If that sounds like ignorance and elitisim then so be it. Its bad enough there are IE and firefox to contend with. Additional browsers makes an already bad situation worse. The space is simply too complicated to be entirely spec driven - unless the browser manufacturer is going to guarantee 100% bug-for-bug compatibility with existing engines they should not even try.

If people want to complain that their web page does not render because they use some obscure rendering engine then by the same token they should not be surprised when they get wet after sticking their heads in the toilot.

Re:Not Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274624)

I guess what is more important is whether the web site was written to standards. If it was and your particular browser doesn't work on it then too bad. If it wasn't and your particular browser supports the standards then there is a valid issue.

Re:Not Opera (5, Informative)

Salmar (991564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274898)

That's it. I've heard it 5 too many times only TODAY:

I've never used Opera and I couldn't care less if it exists.
Fixed.

Re:Not Opera (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274638)

Now, that's still no justification or reason for saying "don't use Opera,"

Really? 0.6% marketshare? Can I complain because it doesn't render properly in Lynx [browser.org] ?

Take my comment as flamebait if you want to. But I have much bigger things to complain about on the web. Like webpages that won't work without Javascript. Or webpages that use stupid flash interfaces. Or how about webpages that aren't dialup friendly? I suspect there's more dialup users out there then Opera users. Don't see anybody on /. jumping up to defend them.

Re:Not Opera (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274790)

Really? 0.6% marketshare? Can I complain because it doesn't render properly in Lynx?

Take my comment as flamebait if you want to. But I have much bigger things to complain about on the web. Like webpages that won't work without Javascript. Or webpages that use stupid flash interfaces. Or how about webpages that aren't dialup friendly? I suspect there's more dialup users out there then Opera users. Don't see anybody on /. jumping up to defend them.
If the website is coded properly (i.e. XHTML+CSS, structured content, etc), the website should work on pratically everything that supports HTML 3.2 and up, even without javascript, java, plugins or images. So yes, Lynx should also work (i.e. you can access the content and navigate). If it doesn't, there's a problem.

Of course, we're not asking to have Google Maps working on Lynx, evidently.

Re:Not Opera (1)

infinityxi (266865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274896)

Exactly. This is just flamebait to just post this. While what he said in response is a stupid "fix" he isn't saying everyone stop using Opera. He is saying that is that ONE guy isn't getting the page loaded up correctly (Notice he said other people using opera had no problems.) Upgrade or use another browser. It would be nice if people would stop posting up summaries that give quotes out of context...

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274904)

And Mac Daniel points this out himself, which actually makes Mac Daniel look like more of an ass.

Granted, the entire exchange is stupid.

I gotta agree (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274494)

Opera should be deprecated. It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox. The Internet will be better off if websites permanently ban this Scandinavian piece of shit.

Re:I gotta agree (5, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274566)

"It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox."

Wrong on both counts. I'd go into detail, but a cure for your ignorance is only 4.7 megabytes away.

Re:I gotta agree (5, Informative)

Danga (307709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274836)

Opera should be deprecated. It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox. The Internet will be better off if websites permanently ban this Scandinavian piece of shit.

You are an idiot. Opera has been ad free for a LONG time and it does not install any adware. Opera 9 is also faster than Firefox 2, it kicks Firefox's ass quite handily:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html [howtocreate.co.uk]

Why should a browser that is still being actively developed and used be deprecated? Please try to post something relevent next time.

Same $hit, Different Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274500)

This is pretty old news. I complain that I can't read what you want to deliver to me. You say, well, you should take what I deliver regardless of how I do it. If you can't read it, change what you are reading it with. Huh???? Shouldn't you be trying to reach the masses and not just the folks that are 'tuned into' you?

An ignorant comment did show what the truth is. Not all 'websicles' are created equal and most authors don't really care if you have to change browser, download a plug-in, etc to get the content - but, they are ignorant.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274514)

so that's what Slashdot considers "going medieval" on someone? Must not be from the south side of the middle ages then.

Swi

Re:Wow (1, Offtopic)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274524)

God damn it! I keep hitting that stupid "Post Anonymously" button thinking it's the "No Karma Bonus." Ok, folks, go medieval (slashdot style) on me for the fuckup.

Swi

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274536)

It seemed much more recent than medieval. More like "going post-modern" on them.

Get a life (1, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274526)

These arguments always piss me off. Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them? So this guy is using Opera. That's nice. He says he doesn't care about anything as unimportant as "percentage of the Internet population" that uses the browser. He has chosen to use it and as such it is his god given right to have all the sites he wants to use support it.

Get a life.

Two sides to this. First, yes if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers.
On the other hand, if your browser isn't worth supporting from a dollars and cents point of view that is your problem, not theirs. If it would cost a business X amount of money to add support for a piece of software and the total amount of cash that will be brought in by new customers because of that software is less than X, it is never going to happen. NEVER.

You see the same thing in the Linux community (and oh god am I going to get modded down/flamed for this), but every time a discussion of Linux adoption comes up and the games laugh someone always says something along the lines of "if only the developers would get their heads on strait and release the games for Linux...". Games don't get released on OS's where it is physically imposable to recoup the cost of development from the install base. Large commercial websites don't support browsers that don't have enough users to pay for it. This base assumption of deserving support is arrogant and counter productive. /END RANT

Re:Get a life (2, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274572)

Why is the parent modded insightful? Opera isn't Free Software, so saying this Opera user is representative of the "free software community" is, to put it simply, a load of bullshit.

Re:Get a life (2)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274688)

It's true that Opera isn't Free Software, but it is a valid point (although off-topic). I'm a Linux user myself, and the only people I expect to make Linux compatible with third party hardware, software and other standards are the Linux users and developers. I don't expect the people who made my wireless card to be responsible for making sure it works on an operating system that will be used by maybe 2% of potential customers. If it's more profitable to lose those sales than develop Linux drivers, I don't expect them to develop the Linux drivers.

However when something follows established standards (as does Opera), I would expect third party developers to honor those standards.

Re:Get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274696)

Wow. Parent is +5 Insightful? Jesus, it looks like slashdot is infested with the pro-microsoft/anti-foss crowd on the weekends.

Re:Get a life (1, Offtopic)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274698)

Someone with mod points should untroll this guy. How is stating the obvious truth troll-worthy? Opera is not free software as the term is used when speaking about the "free software community". Opera "is proprietary software and closed source." Citation [wikipedia.org] . It might be no-cost software, but it certainly isn't free.

Re:Get a life (3, Insightful)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274578)

Er...you've missed something here. This isn't an obscure piece of software demanding full and immediate mainstream acceptance. Opera follows open web standards, which are the goal for clean code on ALL web sites. So, in essence, unless someone is still dumb enough to code their site for IE and IE only, ALL web browsers work just fine with it.

Also, you didn't RTFA either: it's not actually Opera, it's just his computer. (See my earlier comment.)

Re:Get a life (4, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274786)

Opera follows open web standards, which are the goal for clean code on ALL web sites. So, in essence, unless someone is still dumb enough to code their site for IE and IE only, ALL web browsers work just fine with it.


I'm an Opera fanboy, but I don't think this is always a problem of coding specifically for IE. Opera works quite well on 98% of the sites I visit. Occassionally I bump into one that doesn't work in Opera, but works just fine in Firefox. Maybe Opera does 'support all the standards' and FF has a few IE-like nicities, as opposed to failing to implement an obscure feature that some sites use. I cannot really say I know. I do know that Google Maps works better in FF than Opera. Don't get me wrong, it's quite usable and useful in Opera, but in FF it's a little more interactive with the mouse. I don't think this is due to a lack of effort on Google's part to support Opera.

It's easy to make sites that work with both FF and Opera, but there are niggling issues here and there that still bring up a bit of trouble. I love Opera, but I cannot personally say it's as good at reaching all the sites on the web as FF is. It would be fair for me to say, though, that this is a problem I so rarely come across anymore that I agree with you that this is silliness on the side of the web developer. Getting their site to work with Opera would probably just require a couple of little tweaks. That is, of course, assuming that Opera 9 didn't already solve the problem. (I haven't exhaustively tested this yet, but a couple of sites I had trouble with in O8 worked beautifully in 9.)

I agree with the GP poster that it should make economic sense for them before they support Opera. I agree with you that better coding standards on their site would alleviate this problem with the added benefit of supporting other browsers like Safari. There's a happy medium in there somewhere. Honestly, I think the "have Opera and FF both installed" solution is that happy medium. That's what keeps me from sending nasty-grams twice a year when I hit a site Opera can't open.

Re:Get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274858)

Similarly (posting from Safari, though I use Opera on WinXP at work), most of the time I have problems with websites it's because they served me the IE crap (Even though I identify as Opera), and serve firefox something else. Most recent was a webpage I tried to view with used what I believe was some IE specific XSLT embedding mechanism, but served firefox an already parsed page.

Re:Get a life (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275066)

I agree with the GP poster that it should make economic sense for them before they support Opera.

I use Mozilla.

As far as I'm concerned, with stories like this one, the real issue for me is: in five years time, am I going to be effectively forced to switch back to that POS browser IE, just because of idiot content providers like the Boston Globe who are turning the web into a Windows/IE-only playground, built on top of a foundation of Microsoft's browser bugs?

Now I have to be honest. Whether Opera users are inconvenienced is, on the one hand, not something that affects my sorry ass directly. Except, this has to be viewed as a battle within the context of a larger war for control of the future of the web. And when you look at it that way, there is no way that this little whiny story can be considered anything but ominous- not only for the handful of Opera users in the world, but for anyone who doesn't use IE on Windows and doesn't want to be forced.

Now I know, that it makes more economic sense for corporate sites not to support Opera, to only support IE, and reach the most browsers for the least amount of money. It probably makes them more competitive. That doesn't make it right. This often happens, that a corporation becomes competitive by engaging in some sort of undesirable behavior, which usually means they will do it. That's just because life sucks. We should still hope they don't do these things. In this case, there is a fairly compelling public interest in avoiding a situation where everyone is effectively forced to install Windows in order to access the web.

Re:Get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274600)

Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them?

Opera isn't free software, dumbass.

What does this have to do with Free Software? (4, Insightful)

Chris Tyler (2180) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274632)

Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them?

Why are you bringing "the free software community" into this? Opera isn't free software*, and XP isn't free software, so what does this have to do with the free software community?!

(* Opera is free to download, but it is not Free Software in the sense of the phrase "free software community").

Re:What does this have to do with Free Software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274944)

Why are you bringing "the free software community" into this?

OMFG, who cares? Besides which, you completely missed his point, Einstein.

No... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274652)

It is real simple answer to why. Opera supports publish standards. Those standards should be supported FIRST.
From a business point of view it is real simple do you want someone to not buy your product?
For Firefox that runs about 10% If you can support them you should.
finally this is a PUBLIC site run by as in run by the government! The government shouldn't require one to use a certain browser without a really good reason.

Unless you are doing a lot of Ajax it isn't hard to support Opera.
The only reason is because you are lazy.

Re:No... (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274938)

finally this is a PUBLIC site run by as in run by the government! The government shouldn't require one to use a certain browser without a really good reason.


The government should use it's resources as efficiently as possible. For example the government doesn't support 220 V / 50 Hz AC power in the public power grids. It would truly be a waste of money to support every possible "browser" that a citizen comes up with. If there is an available option that isn't unduly burdensome then it is completely acceptable for the government to tell you to use an option that isn't your first choice. (You might want to peruse the requirements to submit documents to the US Supreme Court...)

Re:No... (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275038)

Except 220 V / 50 Hz AC would take a ton of new hardware. Building a website right takes one competent programmer who will probably cost the same as one incompetent programmer.

Re:No... (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275010)

I know it sucks, but as a web developer I can tell you this: Microsoft has won this war. If you don't code your site to work in IE you lose your job. It doesn't matter if it's 100% standards complaint. The people in suits don't care about that. You code for IE. Period. I personally make sure my site works in Firefox because that's easy enough to do and FF is popular. Opera? Most of my sites do seem to work in Opera but that's because I know what I'm doing, not because I care about Opera. Sorry. Safari? I don't have a Mac to test with. You're on your own. Sorry. Konqueror? Use Firefox. Sorry.

In a world where the vast, VAST majority of the market share is taken up by one browser and you've got deadlines to meet, you do what you can. I know it sucks.

Re:Get a life (5, Interesting)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274684)

This isn't about Free Software, this is about Web Standards and freedom of choice.

if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers

As a developer, I can tell you that I don't have to go out of my way to support modern browsers. I have to go very far out of my way to support Internet Explorer which can't be considerd a modern browser (even IE7), whose standards support is abysmal compared to everything else on the market today. This is a side effect of my knowing how to do my job well.

Once again, an innocent suffers in the name of one of MS' shitty products.

Making a business decision is one thing, but telling your customers to fuck off because your business decision doesn't jive with their personal choices is downright rude.

As for games, it is a more similar issue than you probably realize, because the same people are meddling with the market. If game studios would stop developing against DirectX and start using OpenGL instead, it would be much easier for them to support platforms other than Windows.

Re:Get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274870)

I was going to comment on this, also from a web developer's perspective, but you already said it exactly right. Thanks, Dracos.

I'll just add that Opera (locked down solid with userjs files to emulate Ffox extensions like noscript) is my favorite browser for personal surfing, and a great choice for drafting standards-compliant sites in the first place. (And then, of course, you put in the hacks afterwards--whatever's necessary to accomodate Internet Exploder.)

Re:Get a life (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274906)

If game studios would stop developing against DirectX and start using OpenGL instead, it would be much easier for them to support platforms other than Windows.

Gee you don't ask much. Just that game developers abandon their existing code base and totally retrain their programmers, just to sell a few games to people who represent a tiny portion of the market. Don't hold your breath until that happens!

Even if you develop against platform-agnostic APIs, it still costs a lot of money to support users running your software on different platforms, because of the cost of extra training and procedural documentation for your support staff. Again, there's no incentive to do that as long as those platforms represent a tiny percentage of the market

Re:Get a life (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275068)

Gee you don't ask much. Just that game developers abandon their existing code base and totally retrain their programmers, just to sell a few games to people who represent a tiny portion of the market.
You mean like they are doing with DX10 and vista?

Again, there's no incentive to do that as long as those platforms represent a tiny percentage of the market
Not so much as you may think. How large a percent of the windows market will buy a given game, seeing as there are so many windows games? Now think that the linux/bsd markets have near zero competition for anyone who sells to them. Big difference between people who use an OS and people who will buy games for that OS.

The "business" is obligated to serve the public (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274692)

if a business wants to reach people

This isn't just any business. It is a government-subsidized organization set up to serve the public interest. They have an obligation to serve all people, not just the majority. If they decided to not allow wheelchairs on their vehicles because only 0.001% of the population uses them, the leaders of that organization would be testifying in front of congress within days.

If the site doesn't work with Opera there is a 99% chance it doesn't work with tools for the visually impaired either. Frankly, any government site should be required to use open, published standards.

Re:Get a life (1)

LordNightwalker (256873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274718)

Making the website standards-compliant: $71.79
Number of visitors using a minority browser: 35,893
Profit if site renders correctly: .002 cents/visitor

Depending on the particular style of math you fancy this week, you might just break even!

You are an idiot . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274726)

It wouldn't cost anything extra...in fact, it would cost less...for them to use W3C specifications instead of the Microsoft RTML (Retarded Text Mangled Language) that Exploder needs to function. Just tell visitors to use a real web browser.

Re:Get a life (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274762)

First, yes if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers. On the other hand, if your browser isn't worth supporting from a dollars and cents point of view that is your problem, not theirs.

First, this really has nothing to do with Linux, GNU, FSS, etc. Opera, as far as I know, is closed source commercial software. It is a standards based, highly efficient, flexible browser. The only reason I don't use it is because the version for the Mac was not developed before Camino neé Chimera became an extremely good choice for the Mac.

So this is what the story is really about. Whether a public or private enterprise is going to make a honest effort to make information accessible. Given a reasonable budget, and reasonable developers, creating widely accessible web pages, even moderately complicated ones, is not that difficult. On the high end Google, Yahoo, Amazon, all have highly interactive web pages that work on any browser. As I said, I use Camino, not the most advanced browser, and have no problems. On the lower end, I do content stuff on a Wiki, and have no problems with any browser. Likewise, every blog works on every broswer. With the exception of some very high end application, where the browser is used as a front end, there seems little justification for incompatibility with the major browsers.

In fact, when one gets down to the brass tacks, it seems that incompatibility seems more of a design decision than a necessary evil. There appears to be little effort needed, outside of the hacks to make the page work in IE, to get a page to work reasonably well. OTOH, if one designs for incompatibility, then it is nearly impossible to get a page work in anything other than IE. This is illustrated best for me in one site I have to use for work. The designers, whose incompetence is clear shown in the fact that one has use 5-10 clicks to complete routine activities, has several controls that are incompatible with anything but IE. Now, these controls can easily be implemented using 5 year old generic technology. These controls can easily be implemented so that they are not only more accessible, but more convenient. However, because the design philosophy is not accessibility, but maximum use of MS technology, we end up with a web site that is not only inflexible, but, according to rough estimates I have run, wastes about a million dollars in tax payers money every year. Certainly is would have taken a million dollars more to design towards efficiency.

So here is the rub. This is not about whether a web page will run in a certain browser, it is about why a web page was purposefully designed to not be accessible to all taxpayers. To make an analogy using current event, the complaint is not that all documents are not printed in several different languages so that non english speakers can access the information. The complaint is not even why are the documents not printed in braille, or in the web pages organized in such a way, so that blind people can see them. The complaint is why was so much effort spent to print the documents in red ink on green paper, which is very festive, but can be really hard to read if your color sensitivity is not great, or it you have any vision problems. It might have been a cool idea, but not within the democratic or capitalistic ideals of the US.

Re:Get a life (1)

muyuubyou (621373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274846)

First this has nothing to do with free software. More in other replies.

Second, and most importantly: it is about STANDARDS support, and not using non-standard features. If every site has to be redone for EACH browser, then you either have to multiply your work or you stop supporting more than a couple browsers. Nobody wants that (well maybe MS does, but I'm talking about consumers here). Sites should be based on standards. If a site is standard-compliant, and a browser doesn't render it, the it is the browser's fault (or at least it's not the site's fault).

True, standards are getting bloated at such a pace nobody can fully support them, but that's a different story altogether, unrelated to this case.

Re:Get a life (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274884)

Someone who gets so confused about what Free Software is that they conflate something that you can download at no cost (which is Opera) with Free Software doesn't deserve my attention.

Re:Get a life (1)

mackyrae (999347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274950)

These arguments always piss me off. Why is it that everyone in the free software community has this automatic assumption that the rest of the world should go out of their way to support them? So this guy is using Opera.


Opera isn't Free as in speech; it's only free as in beer. It's proprietary freeware. This is nothing to do with the Open Source / Free Software community.

Re:Get a life (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275036)

Get a life.

Precisely. I've chosen an OS and browser which Adobe/Macromedia deliberately refuse to support. But I'm not sending histrionic rants to YouTube because I can't see any of their crappy videos.

If websites don't want me to visit them, I won't visit them. Simple. And I have lower blood pressure as a result.

Re:Get a life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17275058)

What really pisses me off is ranty fucking windows users who don't take two seconds to understand a damn thing. He was on XP using Opera. The free software community is about freedom, source code - do we understand yet? Now get this through your thick little skull, he was not using ANY free software. He was using restrictive closed source, proprietary software. So sit your mother fucking flaming fanboy ass the fuck down.

And this isn't business either. It's government subsided, with HIS taxes.

Try again later when you learn something about life and reading. Get a life, and stop being so arrogant. Thanks, prick.

Re:Get a life (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275084)

es if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers.

This isn't a random website, it's the public transport site of a city. I don't know how corporatised it is, but in any case they have a greater duty to be accessible to the citizens of the city than your average commercial enterprise.

Firefox (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274528)

To address the inevitable:

Yes, Firefox can be plugged up to do everything Opera does (password fill, voice browsing, mouse gestures, tab thumbnails, comprehensive download management, RSS/etc feeds, two-click privacy management/delete data, on-the-fly presentation modes (change styles, backgrounds, tables, links, images from toolbar in User/Author mode), image gallery jumpthrough, keyboard zoom, and all the rest.

However, Opera provides a standard setup out of the box, on any computer. I can download it and be up and running in seconds, without spending time configuring plugins, and no annoying autoinstalls. It will also look and behave the same on your XP laptop as on my *NIX box, as on your 98 workstation.

And unlike Firefox, Opera will not be using 2GB of swap if you leave it running overnight with Gmail open!

With that in mind, Opera is at the level, or better than Firefox, meaning that it is way better than Internet. Not supporting it is just idiocy.

Re:Firefox (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274574)

With that in mind, Opera is at the level, or better than Firefox, meaning that it is way better than Internet.

Unfortunately, Opera isn't free like Firefox. It's a fact that Opera bundles ads with their software and permits Google to spy on user's searches. Until Opera removes the ads, it'll never escape it's well-deserved reputation of "marketer's wet dream".

Re:Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274710)

Hello Mr. FUD. It seems you don't know about this, so I'll tell you: Opera has been ad-free for quite some time, now. As for that "Google search spying", stop making shit up or give some credible sources.

Re:Firefox (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274654)

Yes, Firefox can be plugged up to do everything Opera does

Whenever the subject of Opera's functionality comes up:

"Install 20 extensions to make Firefox mimic the functionality."

Whenever the subject of Firefox instability comes up:

"Firefox doesn't crash for me. It's probably those 20 extensions you have installed."

Re:Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274982)

Opera is at the level, or better than Firefox, meaning that it is way better than Internet. Not supporting it is just idiocy.

Huh? What the heck does this line mean.

Ok, so you are saying because x is better than y, therefore z should support x?
What a jump of logic! Almost on the same level as the pant stealing gnomes!

Re:Firefox (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275048)

Well, I don't think you can fix HTML rendering errors with Firefox extensions. I recently ran into this one [vgmusic.com] .

Moo (-1, Flamebait)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274534)

Derspatchel's response is to go medieval on Daniels' xxx

Can we please have at least some decency in the stories here?

Re:Moo (0, Troll)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274650)

oh my god, a website used the word "ass"! Someone quick call the FCC, we gotta censor this disgusting abuse of free speech! Oh the horrors, that some young mind might be exposed to the word "ass".

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled graphic violence - just make sure no one says a four letter word or shows a titty.

Re:Moo (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275012)

Hey! You! MustardMan! Hear that? Yup. That was a joke flying over your head.

Seriously, chill.

ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274686)

ass

Re:Moo (1)

adaminnj (712407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274708)

Hey Man even Jesus rode an Ass.

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274760)

But that's not how he got Mary Magdalene pregnant! Hey-ohh!

The 3/3 Rule (2, Interesting)

isnoop (239143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274560)

I'm a fan of the 3/3 rule: If it has less than 3% market share or the version is over three years old, strongly consider what your effort is worth before changing code to support it.

Re:The 3/3 Rule (1)

Secret Agent X23 (760764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274702)

I'm a fan of the 3/3 rule: If it has less than 3% market share or the version is over three years old, strongly consider what your effort is worth before changing code to support it.
Probably a sensible rule. But I think it's better to turn it around and say this: If a new feature you want to develop for your site will require a recent version of a "major" browser, it might be a good idea to reconsider whether you actually need that feature. Or maybe you could spend just a bit of time investigating whether there's some way to achieve the same thing with older technology. You might still end up requiring the recent, major browser, but at least you'll have a good reason for it.

Re:The 3/3 Rule (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274744)

If it has less than 3% market share or the version is over three years old, strongly consider what your effort is worth before changing code to support it.

Whew! It's a good thing then that Apple is just about to pierce 3% of the desktop market share! [techspot.com] Of course you should be careful making claims like that around here since Linux desktops are around only 3% as well, though a quick search didn't turn up any recent numbers.

I find it humorous when people (and certain stupid stereotyping commercials) talk about how consumers are switching from PCs to Apple in droves when just now they are approaching 3% (OSX being released in 2001). I don't anticipate much of an impact, but I do have to wonder what a new release of Windows will do to Apple's market share.

Re:The 3/3 Rule (1)

isnoop (239143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274852)

One of my computers is an Apple. Another is a nix machine. I'm not saying don't support them. I'm saying you should consider whether that thin (and possibly thinning) slice your traffic is worth the effort.

If you're a stock broker, public service, search engine, or some other high volume site, it may well behoove you to do the work. Everyone else may have to come up with some compelling reasons to upgrade their Geocities pages to support Netscape 4 and Konqueror.

My apologies to the 29 NS/Konqueror visitors to my site this week; I don't know, nor do I feel inclined to check whether it works for you. Honest best wishes, though.

Re:The 3/3 Rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274888)

What if that dream client of yours who would be signing a six-or-seven-figure contract with you is among that 3%, and based on seeing that your site does not work with his KHTML-based browser (Safari, Konqueror) decides to go to one of your competitors instead, because they are not shoving Windows/MSIE down his throat?

3% can be significant if your big break could be the one singe person which is among that 3%.

Sometimes not being an elitist prick pays off.

another great site for opera (1)

chakmol (88099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274608)

Try to sign up for Bellsouth DSL using Opera and you get taken to upgradebrowser.html (used to be badbrowser.html, guess they got nicer). There you get more or less told to take your business elsewhere as you cannot go any further:

BellSouth.com offers online features that only work with newer browsers...If you choose not to upgrade your browser, we regret that our website will not function properly for you at this time.
I got cable access. Thank ya Bell!

Re:another great site for opera (slightly OT) (4, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274658)

The baby Bells, for the most part, have reached the size I like to call the "fuck the customer" stage; the stage in which the company is large enough that the business will continue to generate enough profit even if they piss off a fifth of their customers, usually because the customers have few alternatives. I'm convinced that once a business gets above a certain size it's very difficult to stop it from getting to this stage.

Re:another great site for opera (slightly OT) (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274772)

I've come to basically the same conclusion, and it's sad that you're right, and it's sad that the government, rather than making it difficult to fuck the consumer, actually encourages them to do so.

Re:another great site for opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274878)

It's better than that. Check out the choices they give you:

http://www.netscape.com/download/ [netscape.com] (leads to a 404 page)
  and a generic download search page [microsoft.com] at microsoft that doesn't even have Internet Explorer listed.

Figures. The copyright is 2000.

My reply to Boston Globe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274618)

Stop coding websites like it's 1989. A properly coded website will fallback to HTML 3.2, no javascript, no java, no plugins and even no images. If your website doesn't work with all these disabled, it's not coded correctly. The content should be readable, the navigation usable. Everything else is just supposed to add to the website, not be a requirement for it.

Once you do that (XHTML/CSS, no javascript/java/etc required), you shouldn't care which browser people use.

Except of course almost all the fucking versions of Internet Explorer, for which you have to write custom CSS to patch the incompatible bullshit from Redmond.

So let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274666)

1) Some government site changed their webpages
2) Guy A can't load it and assumes he's being blocked because he's using an oddball browser
3) Guy A complains and is told by Guy B to stop using his oddball browser and get over it
4) Guy A goes ballistic on his blog
5) Guys C, D and E respond to Guy A's blog and say "we're using opera and it works fine for us, must be something on your end"
6) Because it's blog drama, one man's fucked-up configuration problems ends up on slashdot

Do I have that right?

Re:So let me get this straight (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274778)

Yup. You'd think there would be some kind of a filter to prevent stuff like this from happening. My coworkers don't delve into the stories, like I do so they come away with just the summary to go by. I'm sure someone will try telling me next week that Boston hates opera, or opera has to be supported because Boston changed their website for Opera.

But in general its a similar problem with all blogs. A company I know Is upset because of a similar situation. Some idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about tried ordering a product from them. He received it didn't like it because of features inherent to the definition of the product ( similar to complaining that water is too wet). He blogs about it on his highly read blog by other people who don't realize there isn't a practical way to make water that isn't wet, and every water commercially available is wet. Now when you search for the companies name, the blog entry comes up first. People who doesn't know about the product are turned away because of the negative tone of his blog combined with the seemingly authoritative position given to it by google.

Re:So let me get this straight (5, Funny)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274820)

> You'd think there would be some kind of a filter to prevent stuff like this from happening.

That's a pretty good idea, actually. I mean, we're never going to get something like actual human editors who could actually inspect the articles before they were posted, so some sort of automated solution to cull out the obvious crap would be a good first step.

Re:So let me get this straight (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274996)

Do I have that right?

You forgot.

7) Profit!!!

Re:So let me get this straight (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275046)

YOU forgot

6.5) ?????

You can't profit without the unknown!!1!11!!1111!!11!!

This is depressing (-1, Flamebait)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274706)

An Opera user sounding like a Firefox zealot.

Where is the story here? (1)

Circus Cyaneus (932888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274720)

Evidently it has come as a shock to the people involved in this article that the Boston Globe sucks. Oh, yes and the MBTA also sucks. And maybe their web site sucks, or maybe it doesn't. And some lame person responds to another lame person's recommendation that he should stop using the relatively lame browser of his choice.

Where are the technical details? What supposedly broke the browser's rendering of the MBTA's new and "improved" website? I remember when this site actually had technical content in their articles. At least Gizmodo has a cool video of a new dragonfly robot.

I wonder why I don't check this website anymore than once every few days or so. I used to read it all the time when it first started.

This is just one persons opinion, but having to wade through, in my view, naive and lefty political expositions (in many comments) to glean a small bit of technical insight has become increasingly less worthwhile, for me.

Granted there are no moonbat comments in this post, but there isn't much in the way of content either. So, was it just this one guy? Does anyone know, or care?

Quick, lets all email Hiawatha Bray to see what his opinion is regarding the Firefox vs. Internet Explorer dustup. I am dying to hear the Globe set the record straight on this cutting edge discussion as well.

My suggestion? Stop using the BMTA! (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274730)

If they don't want to cater to their customers, stop using their service!

Ever since I started seeing auto ads on the city buses in my region, I've stopped taking the bus (only about a dozen times this year) in favour of cycling. I've saved a lot of money doing it, too! (perhaps to save up for the cars they're advertising? Seriously, the Volvo ads say "Transit for the masses. $199/mo" How is that to encourage people to take the bus?!?)

I've also written to my city councillors and have had a letter printed in the paper on the topic. I also tried helping organize a Bus Rider's Union, but it fizzled.

You, too, can be Grouchy!

- RG>

Constructive suggestions (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274736)

While I would like web sites to work worth every web browser on the world, for one reason or another it is not going to happen. These days when doing my testing IE and Firefox are the main test-beds and sometimes followed by Safari and Opera. One thing you need to think about is when whether the issue is web-site related and which are browser related. For example, Safari on MacOS X has a number of issues, which the developments team is watching out for. Javascript is usually the main culrpit for web site breakages.

BTW Having not seen the web site with Opera, what was not working?

Re:Constructive suggestions (1)

Spatch (28798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274854)

BTW Having not seen the web site with Opera, what was not working?

The top menu nav bars all stayed dropped down on every page, obscuring other parts of the UI (bus schedule menu toggles, that kind of thing.) Couldn't click on any of the menu options, it'd just make the drop-down menu in question turn white. Looked like some crazy Javascript error. That's all.

"go medieval on Daniels' ass" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274738)

Uhhh... I don't know if you realize it, but that phrase is most commonly used in the gay s/m community.

It refers to the practice of tying your parter (sometimes unwilling!) down. Usually they're forced to wear a ball gag (it muffles the screaming... there's a lot of screaming). Their cock and balls are worked over with a cattle prod, pliers, ballpeen hammers, etc. Then the fisting commences. Normally 6-12 people are involved, taking turn fisting. Finally, they usually end with a bukake session or old-fashioned rape.

I would think Slashdot editors would be aware of such rituals.

Amazing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274766)


I can't believe that guy has the time on his hands to complain about something so trivial and then goes ballistic when he is told to get a life. Someone needs to get laid... Of course I am posting a comment about it, so ... it probably applies to me too.

Uh, hi there. (5, Informative)

Spatch (28798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274810)

I'm derspatchel. I took the entries and the pictures out of circulation. I don't need the comments and my admin doesn't need the bandwidth overages. I kept saying the last thing I wanted to do was start a goddamn browser war, but it looks as if I didn't really have any choice in that matter. I kicked a rock and it rolled downhill from there.

My original complaint was written as I was viewing the revamped website, and just couldn't believe the nav problem I had seen. Nearly half a million dollars went into the redesign and it seemed like they'd really goofed. The second complaint was written when Mac Daniel threw a little jab in his writeup on the debacle, while I was sussing out the nav problem with Ron Newman. Is it a coding thing? Is it an OS thing? Is it a configuration thing? Is it an enduser thing? I dunno. Then the MBTA reverted to the previous version so I couldn't play around with it any further. And then my knee-jerk reaction to Mac's knee-jerk reaction just led to more knee-jerk reactions. Okay, I gotta stop typing 'knee-jerk' because it's beginning to look weird.

I stand by my opinion that if a browser is in current development and it's W3C compliant, then it should by all rights be considered a supportable browser and a browser to be supported. That's all. If I had been crying that the MBTA site wasn't viewable on Netscape Navigator 4.0, say, then I could see why there'd be a problem and why the advice to change browsers would come pouring in.

All I wanted was to be able to use the website with a current, up-to-date, standards-compliant web browser. I also said I'd be happy to use another supported browser to view it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to, and it'd be much nicer if I weren't told to.

Re:Uh, hi there. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274914)

If your browser is W3C compliant, and the page works in Firefox, then it should work in your browser. If OTHER users of your browser are reporting it works for them, then you should use a different browser that's somewhere around your level of technical understanding so you don't shoot yourself in the foot so much. Basic logic.

Re:Uh, hi there. (1)

Spatch (28798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274958)

The thing is, I hadn't made any major script-breaking adjustments to the browser's configuration. No custom Javascript files or style sheets, no widgets, none of that. And when I fully uninstalled and did a clean, fresh install, with defaults in place, I still saw the same problem.

Maybe it's aliens. You think?

He's just dumb (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274876)

Our suggestion? Stop using Opera. Note in the comments section that other Opera users aren't experiencing the same problems.

Their suggestion is a poor attempt at implying the obvious. If other Opera users aren't experiencing the same problem; then maybe you're just too stupid to configure your browser properly, and should use one that comes set up for you. Of course saying that outright is a PR nightmare so they just said switch browsers.

I don't know why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17274916)

I don't know why I keep coming to this site thinking it may at some time have intelligent discussion. It's probably /. regulars who were hired to build this new site.

Let's think for a moment:
1) The new site is removed because of heavy traffic??? hmmm... that just sounds fishy! I bet it's a couple weeks before the new site is up and running.

2) We need to build a new site to be used by the general public - "I have an idea, let's build it for firefox, After all it is the best browser. F@%ck our log files which say 80%+ use IE."

3) Opera not free (as in free beer). Who cares if it is open source or free to use. It supports standards, something the firefox "fanboys" are always screaming about! Standards, Standards, Standards! (Hey you - Try the blink tag in FF. In FF 2.0 it works great! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_tag [wikipedia.org] )

I wish you guys would actual learn something rather than catch a fragment of what someone says, twist it into your own little story and run wild. At least then you could have some real discussions!

Re:I don't know why... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274936)

Works for me; although Wikipedia likes to turn it into an escaped sequence to prevent actual blinking text.

Re:I don't know why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17275002)

And thus we continue...

From wikipedia

The inventor of the blink tag, Lou Montulli, has said repeatedly in interviews that he considers "the blink tag to be the worst thing I've ever done for the Internet".

The blink element is non-standard, and as such there is no authoritative specification of its syntax. While Bert Bos of the World Wide Web Consortium has produced a Document Type Definition that includes syntax for the blink element (defining it as a phrase element on a par with elements for emphasis and citations), the comments in the DTD explain that it is intended as a joke.

Keep on keeping on!

If you want it to work in your browser (2, Informative)

technicalandsocial (940581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274932)

you're a lot better just asking for W3 compliance than "support $my_browser because I use it". If it follows the W3 standard, we can all use it, and if we can't, it's because of our browser. Run the site through http://validator.w3.org/ [w3.org] and send them the URL as well as their list of errors.

Write standards-conform HTML! (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17274946)

This browser-customized TRASH, you find on many websites is the root of the problem. Opera routinely beast other browsers in conformity tests. If defeloppers stopped trying to cater to broken browsers a) the browsers would get fixed and b) testing would get far, far easier. After all, that is what standards are for...

Side note: The 0.6% figure is highly doubtful. Because of broken websites that work fine in Opera, but that refuse to load if they detect anything other than IE or FireFix, many Opera users set their Browser to pretend to be IE. Broken statistics tools cannot see through this.

I had a similar problem (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275060)

In the early days of the web, a website would not work right on my smallish monitor. Higher resolutions were too fuzzy.

I sent an email to complain, and got back: "Buy a bigger monitor". Republican tech-support, I assume :-)

And the entitlement culture continues (3, Interesting)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17275072)

Regardless of the validity of the guy's point (and it has some validity), is anyone else struck by how inured we've become to borderline-irrational rants from whiny little bitches?

First of all, how ridiculous is it to get emotionally engaged in some website's browser support policies? They may be stupid, counterproductive, outdated, or arbitrary and inane... but this guy acts like they're some kind of religious dogma and he's from an opposing sect.

Second, whatever happened to voting with one's wallet, or eyeballs in this case? I mean, he acts like they are obligated to make their content available to him, and that their apparent refusal to support his browser somehow impinges on his human rights. What the hell?

Finally, you have to wonder if this guy has ever gotten his way in any dispute. Because no matter how right he might be, he comes across like an 8 year old whose parents won't buy him the vibrating Harry Potter broom.

All of which is unremarkable in itself, but what *is* remarkable to me is that this seems to be par for the course these days. It's like people have lost interest in actually getting what they want (better browser support in this case), and are enjoying masturbatory tirades instead.

-b

And yeah, you can call me kettle, but I'm coming at this from sadness, not anger, so that's got to be worth something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...