Beta
×

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!

Gates Expresses Surprise Over IE8 Secrecy

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the a-little-clarity-is-required dept.

381

eldavojohn writes "Shortly following the frustrations of IE7, Gates claims that he is unaware that IE8 Secrecy has been alienating developers. Ten influential bloggers met with Bill on Tuesday and asked Gates questions about why they are no longer receiving information on IE. From Molly Holzschlag's blog: 'Something seems to have changed, where there is no messaging now for the last six months to a year going out on the IE team. They seem to have lost the transparency that they had. This conversation [between Web developers and the IE team] seems to have been pretty much shut down, and I'm very concerned as to why that is.' To which Bill replied: 'I'll have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE.'"

cancel ×

381 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In a perfect world (5, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616595)

They'd be no secret about what I'd be doing if I was running the Internet Explorer 8 team. Here's a few things I'd do:

  1. Turn everything on this page [wikipedia.org] that is red to green for the Trident engine.
  2. Fix everything on this [positioniseverything.net] page.
  3. Correctly support the mime-type for XHTML and display an error if *anything* on that page is incorrectly formed. The last part of this sentence is absolutely crucial. We need to start breaking pages that are not correct, XHTML is a good chance to push this.
  4. Get rid of the Trusted Site, Internet, Untrusted security model and just have Untrusted.
  5. Get rid of ActiveX. Support Internet Explorer 6 for ActiveX for another five years to allow people to transition to other platforms.

For bonus points, do all this faster and with less memory than Internet Explorer 7 takes.

This is a fairly modest list but if they fixed all of that, Internet Explorer would be a joy to develop against. Hell, I might even consider replacing Firefox as my default browser on Windows. However, as much as we can collectively dream, you know they'll rejig the interface slightly, crank up the version number by one and call it a day.

Microsoft is a text-book example of a market failure. Nearly every other browser has Internet Explorer boxed off in terms of functionality, security and speed. The only reason it is the world's number one browser is because it comes pre-installed with WIndows.

As a program Internet Explorer is simply trash. I simply hate it. Actually I fucking despise it. It is a big ball of shit [codinghorror.com] . It's the ugly building in the middle of a city that everyone wants torn down but it just sits there damaging the community's spirit.

I once joked with a colleague that Internet Explorer has probably wiped billions off pounds off the world economy. I laughed, paused for a moment, and realised it's probably completely true. What could the world have done with all those countless hours hacking their CSS to support the trash that is Internet Explorer?

Doesn't it make you depressed?

Simon

Re:In a perfect world (-1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616757)

If the browser started displaying warnings on every page that didn't pass w3c validation, then probably less than 1% of the pages on the internet would not display an error. The slashdot front page doesn't pass HTML validation. Very few pages on the internet have valid HTML+CSS. Something like that isn't feasible right now. Also, something like that would greatly annoy users, and push them to use browsers that don't have this "feature".

Re:In a perfect world (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616919)

First, the OP is referring to XHTML, where an error message on malformed XML is required. Second, if IE gave an error for a web page, web developers would surely fix it before the users had a chance to complain much. Fixing legitimate XML errors would be easier than the contortions web developers already go through just to make pages look good in the current version of IE.

Re:In a perfect world (2, Interesting)

ET_Fleshy (829048) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616985)

He specifically said pages served in xhtml.

Very, very few pages are served this way, it's usually text/html.

Xhtml is suppose to break!

Re:In a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617287)

One can check on the server if the user agent accepts content-type "application/xhtml+xml" and serve that (plus XML prologue) if it is accepted. Otherwise serve as "text/html".

Re:In a perfect world (4, Insightful)

devjj (956776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617357)

This is why web developers need to stop working around shitty rendering engines en masse. Every single time we - as developers - utilize hacks to make things work in IE where they're fine in WebKit, Gecko, et. al., we further allow IE to be as bad as it is. Do you honestly think IE would be the POS it is today if the world's web sites didn't work in it? Every single time we work around it we provide Microsoft reason not to change anything. Literally. Microsoft's biggest concern has always been backwards compatibility, and it is that reason that so many of the issues we have now we also had then. It would be one thing if IE7 had shown considerable improvement in this regard, but that simply isn't the case. IE7 kept some bugs, and swapped out some well-known ones for others, which we now have to hack around, again.

If browsers actually required that we provide valid code each and every time, things would be a lot better. How many browser security holes can be traced to a parser that would not have been affected had it simply seen invalid input and rejected it? How much simpler and faster would browsers be if they didn't spend so much time trying to figure out what the person who wrote the code intended? How much more accessible would the content on those pages be to alternative browsers, like screenreaders?

We've been running for way too long on the mindset that anybody can build web pages. Web browsers were built with this mentality. If I'm integrating with an enterprise XML API, and I feed it bad data, it gives me the proverbial finger. Why should web pages be any different? If you want to put stuff online, learn how to do it properly. The web is a cesspool for precisely this reason, and you can't blame the standards themselves. The XHTML and CSS specs are by no means perfect, but writing well-formed XHTML and CSS is not difficult. Requiring developers to ensure that every start tag has an end tag, proper nested order, alt tags, and the like, would go a long way toward keeping the architecture of the Internet sustainable. Granted, it might put sites like Myspace out of business, but I'll go out on a limb and say that's not a bad thing.

Our PCs would be a lot safer, too. Call that a bonus.

Re:In a perfect world (0)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617525)

How much longer would it take to develop dynamic websites that comform perfect to standards? What business would be willing to pay for that? If the going rate for a website is $X, you can't just start to tell businesses that it's now going to cost them $100X. And it would cost that much more. Because only about 5% (very high estimate) of web developers even know what would come close to constituting a properly formatted html/xhtml document.

Re:In a perfect world (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617385)

Something like that isn't feasible right now.

Yes it is quite feasible. So there will be errors for the short term. Then the errors will be fixed by sites that care. Sites that don't care will wither and die off. That is the good result of error checking --- errors tend to be fixed.

Too mundane, not flashy and pointless enough (4, Interesting)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616763)

If Vista has taught us anything, it's that Microsoft is laser-focused on superficial and eye-candy improvements, while caring very little about improving (or even fixing) the underlying technologies. From my (thankfully VERY brief) experience with Vista, it looks like the only thing they even remotely attempted to fix or improve was security, and that... well, heh, it reminded me of a maxim I once heard: "Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it--badly."

My prediction is that IE 8 will have exactly the same rendering capabilities, but it will have some sort of annoying new UI, plus maybe a few extremely annoying security features that everyone will turn off immediately.

Re:Too mundane, not flashy and pointless enough (2, Informative)

baadger (764884) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616973)

My prediction is that IE 8 will have exactly the same rendering capabilities, but it will have some sort of annoying new UI, plus maybe a few extremely annoying security features that everyone will turn off immediately.
This is a perfect description of IE 7. There were only *bug fixes* to the rendering capabilities of IE6.

Re:Too mundane, not flashy and pointless enough (5, Insightful)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617085)

Actually I thought the perfect description of IE 7 was "response to Firefox." Seriously, I don't think IE 7 existed as a serious, active project until Firefox started claiming significant percentages of the browser market, and most of the UI additions are ripped straight from Firefox. But, in the case of IE 8, this time there isn't really anything obvious to rip from Firefox--maybe integrated spellchecker? If they try to offer an easy-to-install plugin system (I'm assuming IE 7 doesn't have one already. If it does, forgive me--I've used IE 7 a grand total of maybe 15 minutes), the results will be a security disaster.

Re:In a perfect world (2, Funny)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616805)

  • Dont forget SVG support too.
  • A good debugger would be nice.
  • Meet the standards and then innovate on top of them. Remember back in the day when every browser was adding extra tags to try to outdo the other guy? I really think we need that again. Semantic web is a pipe dream, HTML sucks, CSS is largely ivory tower bullshit and the W3C is ineffective at giving developers a good language. A classic Firefox vs IE battle of layout tags is exactly what we need to stir up the pot. Just make sure you follow the current standards first.
I have no doubt that IE has cost our global economy billions of dollars in wasted time and effort. I also suspect there is a higher instance of stress related illness and depression in web developers. Developing on today's internet sucks monkey balls, and it is a large part due to IE. ... And this is all comming from me, proudly running on Vista developing in VS2008. I'm practically a Microsoft fanboy!

Re:In a perfect world (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617065)

I hope you were joking about "Meet the standards and innovate on top of them". The browser war was terrible for developers. You obviously don't remember trying to program Javascript during the Netscape 4 days. Anybody who knows anything about web development knows that you don't do layout with "tags" you do layout with CSS. It's different than doing layout with HTML Tables and Tags, but it makes your website much more flexible. CSS3 is coming, and it will provide us with even more features.

Re:In a perfect world (3, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617217)

I know that you do layout in CSS. The problem is CSS is an inadequate way to express layout. Where is my "make a three column grid that extends the height of the page" in CSS?

My point was really, there needs to be some innovation. HTML & CSS have grown stagnant and are not keeping up with what modern web applications are asking it to do. W3C is an ineffective standards body and is incapable of delivering something to meet these new demands. The only way I can see innovation now is if browser makers roll their own. Hell, even firefox has those -x-rounded-corner things. Gee. Maybe people want rounded corners huh? Why isn't this getting added to a formal standard?

The important thing though is to make sure you meet all the baseline standards first before adding cool crap on top. IE doesn't meet the baseline yet, so they aren't in a place to do cool new stuff.

At least, this is my opinion.

Re:In a perfect world (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617427)

I've never understood why people would want a 3 column layout on the web. The web isn't a newspaper. 3 Column layout doesn't work well. I seriously think someone went through the trouble of figuring out what CSS couldn't do (however useless or obscure) and started it as a meme or how weak CSS was. Firefox has x-rounded-corners because it's part of CSS3, and it's not officially supported yet, so they don't want everyone using the actual css rounded corners thinking that it's fully supported. For more information on rounded corners in CSS follow the link [w3.org] .

Re:In a perfect world (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617247)

I have no doubt that IE has cost our global economy billions of dollars in wasted time and effort
So you know that it cost a lot of money in wasted time and effort, and yet you want to add in custom tags so that developers have to design their web pages twice? Cause honestly from a support stand point, do you really want to listen to people whine that they can't view your web page nicely (ie broken). I remember when I liked to use Netscape 4.X back in the day, and hated having to goto IE to view a website, and more so back than then now it was one of the only pages (that you knew/could find) that had what you needed. If companies/people tried doing that today you'd just go somewhere else and not care that X browser is better than the Y browser your using.

Re:In a perfect world (4, Interesting)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617495)

As long as the baseline standards are met, who cares? Nobody sane will use proprietary tags. All it does is make the other browser maker go "those bastards! they have curvy corner tags! lets steal the thing and enhance it by add drop shadows too!". Now we've got drop shadowed DIV's with curvy corners in CSS. Each browser maker will copy the other guy's syntax, improve it a bit, and kick it back out the market.

Look at the IFRAME. You think that little fairly useful tag came from the W3C? Look at all the other tags you've got in HTML. How many of them were dreamed up by the eggheads at the W3C? I'm no historian, but I'd wager most of the useful bits of HTML and possibly CSS we have today is not because of the W3C, but a byproduct of the IE vs. Netscape wars of way back when. Shit, we even have the useful BLINK tag!!

The W3C is horrible at cranking out useful standards - those guys seem more interested in hearing themselves talk. They want you to give up tables for a grid layout (which is a good move) but provide no direct replacement. Yes you can rid yourself of tables, but you do so with a hack. Hell, wasn't the TABLE tag something from Netscape?

Bottom line? The only way we will evolve on the web is with another bloody tag war.

At least, in my opinion. I could be wrong you know :-)

Re:In a perfect world (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616835)

Tell me about it. I only have a Mac mini, so I just bought a Windows XP Home SP 2 Full Version (with COA) on eBay just so I could test websites with IE6 and IE7.

WinXP = about 100$
VMWare Fusion = about 80$
2GB of RAM for the Mac mini = about 200$

With shipping, taxes and everything, this means I had to pay around 300$ just so I can test and make custom CSS for a browser that still can't correctly render a website according to CSS specs.

Re:In a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617145)

Why didn't you just run IE directly?

http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page [tatanka.com.br]

Re:In a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617237)

Microsoft gives away FREE images [microsoft.com] for just this purpose.

Re:In a perfect world (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617405)

Ahem [microsoft.com] .

I'd say that $100 was wasted, VMWare has the capability to convert VirtualPC images. (dunno whether it might want to reactivate because of the changed virtual machine hardware though)

Re:In a perfect world (2, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616883)

The problem is that Trident is also used as an all purpose rendering engine. Just about everything you can think of that renders "something", aside from big hot shots companies, will use Trident to render their content...so break Trident, you break everything. Thats part of why upgrades to it are so incremental and never revolutionary.

Now, why don't they change the engine in IE while keeping both versions for backward compatibility? Thats the more interesting question.

Re:In a perfect world (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617369)

>>Now, why don't they change the engine in IE while keeping both versions for backward compatibility? Thats the more interesting question.

The same reason why they didn't break all backward compatibility for Vista and use a sandboxed WinXP emulator for older applications.

MSFT managers won't think out side the box.

Re:In a perfect world (2, Interesting)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616931)

Get rid of the Trusted Site, Internet, Untrusted security model and just have Untrusted.

So even your company intranet should be untrusted (Restricted Sites), and not allowed to use ANY plugins or Javascript? Ya, great plan. Lets not forget how useless many other sites would be.

I once joked with a colleague that Internet Explorer has probably wiped billions off pounds off the world economy. I laughed, paused for a moment, and realised it's probably completely true. What could the world have done with all those countless hours hacking their CSS to support the trash that is Internet Explorer?

It's actually completely false. Your argument is similar to that used by those pushing "traffic safety" measures. Higher insurance rates / costs from accidents don't damage the economy, they actually contribute to it. You may not be happy paying $100 more to your insurance that you could put elsewhere, but its certainly not hurting the economy at all. If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.

Re:In a perfect world (0, Redundant)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617229)

Higher insurance rates / costs from accidents don't damage the economy, they actually contribute to it. You may not be happy paying $100 more to your insurance that you could put elsewhere, but its certainly not hurting the economy at all. If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.

Sounds like the broken window fallacy [capmag.com] to me. This doesn't add any money to the system unless the victims are all misers. At best, it simply diverts it from one path to another.

Re:In a perfect world (5, Interesting)

coolGuyZak (844482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617233)

If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.

While superficially correct, this is a case of the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org] . The money spent working around IE bugs could be spent better elsewhere (for instance, QA, usability, etc.).

Re:In a perfect world (1)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617411)

So even your company intranet should be untrusted (Restricted Sites), and not allowed to use ANY plugins or Javascript? Ya, great plan. Lets not forget how useless many other sites would be.

That's a strawman. A security model comparable to Firefox or Opera is what I was referring to. In a large corporation I'd expect the security threat would be more hostile than the open Internet. The vast majority of attacks on the Internet are indiscriminate and are just focused on finding anybody to to attack. In the corporate setting, you're much more likely to find a determined, focused attacker who is trying to subvert your security with inside knowledge.

It's actually completely false. Your argument is similar to that used by those pushing "traffic safety" measures. Higher insurance rates / costs from accidents don't damage the economy, they actually contribute to it. You may not be happy paying $100 more to your insurance that you could put elsewhere, but its certainly not hurting the economy at all. If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.

Educated yourself. [wikipedia.org] Internet Explorer is the ultimate broken window. It's an opportunity cost on everyone who has to develop for it.

Simon

Re:In a perfect world (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617011)

They'd be no secret about what I'd be doing if I was running the Internet Explorer 8 team. Here's a few things I'd do:

6. Look for a new job because they fired me.

MS doesn't want those fixed. Seriously, they make money by ensuring that other browsers can't compete because the Web is broken to conform to IE's modifications of the standards. In this way they lock people into their platform. If IE was standard compliant, then soon Web apps would be standard compliant, and then why the hell would big companies stick with IE and an expensive OS, when they can just run Linux for free?

Microsoft is a text-book example of a market failure. Nearly every other browser has Internet Explorer boxed off in terms of functionality, security and speed. The only reason it is the world's number one browser is because it comes pre-installed with WIndows.

IE will never have the same functionality, at least in terms of standards compliance, as other browsers as long as MS is allowed to bundle it without also bundling competitors. The Web will remain broken so long as MS is allowed to abuse their monopoly and numerous other markets will be broken as well, with innovation intentionally slowed for their profit. It is long past time the government enforced the fucking laws against MS, despite all the campaign contributions they made to both parties.

In the real world, it's time to move on. (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617189)

In the real world, M$ is going to promise to fix those issues (again) but never deliver. That's what the developer revolt is about, people realize the promise is a lie. I think M$ has burnt the last of their trust this time. Everyone knows that IE8 is going to just like IE7 - late, insecure and full of broken promisses.

Re:In the real world, it's time to move on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617313)

Aww, you added the dollar sign to your sig now. How cute.

Re:In a perfect world (1, Troll)

MrDERP (1004577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617061)

Hate to play devils advocate but I think with ie 7 they have made much improvement, especially as far as speed and memory, Firefox is getting to the point it's to bloated, memory leaks etc, sometimes When I have 5-10 tabs open my computer crawls. too many built in "features" that should be add-ons The "Zones" for trusted sites in IE drives me nuts though, there should be 2 trusted and blocked. You should be able to choose the default out of those 2 options (to block everything not white listed or allow everything not blacklisted). The reason I use firefox (on windows)is not because it doesn't use much memory (uses more IMO and is slower) but because of Adblock Plus, and no "Zones" or Active X bs , Active X should only be used for one thing Windows Update, get rid of trusted zones. Opera has both beat with memory and speed , even built in torrent downloader (which is kind of sucky IMO.) On windows however, Opera is the fastest and uses the least memory my conscious is clear using a TPB torrented copy. Someday when I am working fulltime, done with school I will pay for it.

Re:In a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617231)

Not sure what version of Opera you're using, but it's been free for the past 5 years or so.... Since you mentioned the torrent part of it, I'm assuming 8 or 9, which were both free (I forget when torrents came into opera, but I agree that it's a pretty terrible torrent client).

Re:In a perfect world (1)

secPM_MS (1081961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617079)

I disagree with your trying to supress the trust zone model. It can be very useful, but I very much want to combine it with a fine-grained NoScript capability. I use 3 zones on my work notebook, which runs IE 7 in enhanced security configuration (scripting enabled only in the trusted zone) as the default browser:

Trusted zone - Windows Update, various MS IT sites that I use for Software downloads, my Bank, etc

Intranet zone - internal websites, limited scripting, but downloading is supported

Internet zone - no scripting, restricted downloading

Then if I want to go to a web site that needs to execute script, but which I do not want to extend full trust, I use FireFox with NoScript and limit what script sources I allow to run. This allows me to buy from Amazon and other suppliers. I also use if for downloading material that is blocked by the default settings of my IE7 configuration.

By default, I block flash and other active content.

By careful configuration of multiple browsers I am able to get only the functionality that I need and expose myself to the risks associated with this functionality and not those associated with richer functionality. I would add that I run as a normal user, not as an administrative user, so installing executables requires me to approve it as system administrator, something that I do not often do.

Windows hosted on SourceForge (1)

luzihan (1199981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617339)

Oh Yeah...

On the day Microsoft decides to put their next release of Windows on SourceForge (or some other OSS server), I will start to believe some of what they say. Until then it's all FUD and lies to me.

Sorry Bill, we all know you're incredibly smart, unfortunately you're still not using your powers for the right goals. Stop greed and stop thinking about how to earn the next 100 Million Dollars (believe me, you don't need them to become happy, you already have enough of that money stuff, the next millions just make you sick or less happy). Start thinking about how to make the world a better place. We're here, waiting for you. Don't make us wait forever! Tomorrow might be too late, and I would be sad about that!

Lu zi han.

Re:In a perfect world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617449)

"Microsoft is a text-book example of a market failure. Nearly every other browser has Internet Explorer boxed off in terms of functionality, security and speed. The only reason it is the world's number one browser is because it comes pre-installed with WIndows."

We'll assume you accidentlay got that backwards. To be as bad as you claim, and still #1 by a huge margin is obviously text book market success.

Re:In a perfect world (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617517)

Microsoft is a text-book example of a market failure. Nearly every other browser has Internet Explorer boxed off in terms of functionality, security and speed. The only reason it is the world's number one browser is because it comes pre-installed with WIndows.
Do you know what market means? What you're describing is a market success- they LEAD the market. You could call it a technical failure, or an engineering failure. Not a market failure.

Why don't you just head over to MSDN, code your webpages for IE specifically and let Mozilla, Apple, and Opera deal with supporting compatibility issues, since they're the ones competing for scraps of the market.

If firefox was the #1 browser- wait, forget that, Opera or Webkit- firefox only loosely follows standards and has numerous quirks of its own-, your argument would be valid. Since IE is #1, it's a chicken/egg debate. The Open source community makes their own standards, then gets pissed when people don't follow them. Use Microsoft's standards- they're just as valid- moreso, even. It's all based on perspective.

I hear bricks falling upstairs (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616619)

I expect a lot of scrutiny from the top, here. Microsoft, for all it's warts, has always been up front in publishing to their life's blood, the developers developers (cue Monkey Dance references then ignore). The response to the message from the top, however was pathetic.

You can forgive anything from a manager except an inability to communicate. Hachamovitch broke rule #1, expect to see him kicked as soon as IE8 is released. Too late perhaps, but then maybe the top dogs were a little too hands-off?

Agile development is ok, total cowboy development on something this important is not.

Or perhaps the Microsoft Development Framework has been dumped? Sometimes people escape to waterfall development in order to have documents to hide behind. I would expect some scary people sitting in on the next few meetings, whatever it was.

Re:I hear bricks falling upstairs (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617107)

Agile development is ok, total cowboy development on something this important is not.
Wow! I am so going to use that with my developers!

If it's really important, it should be free. (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617359)

Agile development is ok, total cowboy development on something this important is not.

If it's that important, no single company should have control of it. If you want it to work well, it should not have owners. The failings of IE7 are failings of non free software. The owners have a fundamental conflict with user's interests and will never deliver what the users want.

Of course (5, Funny)

darkhitman (939662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616641)

To which Bill replied: 'I'll have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE.'"
Of course there's no deep secret about it. "We're doing nothing" is hardly a secret, after all.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616955)

That was exactly my thought. Just like the ie 6 series.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616651)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
Gates expresses surprise at goatse [goatse.ch]

Truncated (3, Funny)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616655)

That quote was incomplete, it's really: "I'll have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE. *cackle*"

Why can't I find anything on IE from Google? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616659)

Because I've looked, and I can't find anything on [google.com] .

Re:Why can't I find anything on IE from Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617485)

WARNING: Nobody click on that -- it does the goatse thing.

Now, can somebody explain how this link works? The href is http://www.google.com/search?searchQ=msie+version+8&q=contactlog.net&btnI [google.com]

How the hell does this link bring up goatse? What's the hack here?

An explanation here would probably be [narrowly] on topic, given the discussion of browser behavior.

Thanks.

No Secret (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616665)

there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE.

"We're not doing anything."

Maybe (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616685)

The IE team is tired of all the adolescent crap that gets posted in their blog. I know I would.

Re:Maybe (4, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616865)

In this case, that "adolescent crap" is well deserved and hardly adolescent. It is the outpour of pent up rage from professional web developers everywhere.

Until you've done serious web development, you have no idea how frustrating it is to target IE. Especially when you have to explain to your client why it took a day longer than you estimated because of IE.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616987)

No, it's not well deserved. Clearly you didn't read through those comments. And the people working on IE7/8 are not the same as the ones that shipped IE5/6, and while the company might deserve the criticism, the individual developers and managers don't.

I bet it's really hard to manage a project when you post an incidental blog entry about an icon change and you get 300 puerile comments about how you should be working on OMG CSS OMG STANDARDS when the roadmap for the product and what it would support based on time constraints and backwards compat requirments was laid out at the beginning of the project quite openly.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617141)

I could be wrong, so hear me out:

I read almost all the comments from both blog entries. Aside from a few slashdotty tin-foil-hat EVIL M$ posts, I felt most were fairly well thought out. I don't think anybody was dissing the developers or managers, but more of "hey guys! we are all feeling neglected here" kind of deal.

How about this. Are the comments you read on those two posts of the same nature as, say, those from the infamous "Digg Rebellion"?

Re:Maybe (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616999)

In this case, that "adolescent crap" is well deserved and hardly adolescent. It is the outpour of pent up rage from professional web developers everywhere.

Huh, and here I thought "outpouring pent up rage" would be considered very unprofessional.

Especially when you have to explain to your client why it took a day longer than you estimated because of IE.

If you're targeting IE (and there's no reason not to), I'd expect you'd learn how to do things the IE way, and then tweak to work in IE and FF. IE is the largest share of the market after all, and as a PROFESSIONAL I'd think you'd have learned all the quirks by now.

Re:Maybe (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617071)

I'm only a pseudo professional. I dont do enough development to know all the ins and outs of IE*. Personally I have high props to professional web developers, but I also think they must all be somewhat insane. Web development is probably the hardest, most frustrating career path a tech-dude can take right now.

Why code for the exceptions? (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617479)

If you're targeting IE (and there's no reason not to), I'd expect you'd learn how to do things the IE way, and then tweak to work in IE and FF.

There is good reason not to code first for IE. For one thing, IE is forgiving of some code problems that will cause standards-compliant browsers to render incorrectly. If you check it first in IE, you won't know why it doesn't work in Firefox and Opera. If you check it in Firefox first, it will probably work in IE.

In other cases, where IE doesn't render correct code correctly, you may be able to throw it off with an alternate block of code, or let it ignore something it doesn't understand. But you're treating IE as the exception, because it IS the exception to established standards. If you code for IE first, you're pretending that all those Mac (and iPhone) users out there and all those Firefox users don't exist.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617175)

No, it's the rants of petulant children.

If you've done *serious* web development then you consider yourself a *professional*. And as a professional, you no longer have the luxury afforded to the "my CSS is art" drama-queens.

As a professional, you should be more concerned with the viability of your design to meet your clients goals: most often to sell something, support something already sold, or strengthen the brand they use to sell things. Which means you should be focusing on nothing more than making your design accessible to the widest swath of viewers.

You should be TARGETING IE from the beginning. No, it's not sexy or trendy. And Yes, i'm writing this from Firefox, so I feel your pain. But when you develop for, FF/Opera/Safari and you realize it looks like crap in IE, you have to go to a client and say "The design doesn't work for 70%+ of the web population. I need time to fix it" Of course, they are not going to be happy. The obvious question is "You just NOW thought about that?" Now, if you do your job, you'd develop on IE first, and then go to the client and say "With another day, I can make this design work for the <30% of users on FF/Opera/Safari. Would you like me to do that?"

This really isn't debatable. Is IE the best browser? Not in my opinion. Does that matter one bit when you're being paid $50-100/hr to do web development? Not for a second...

Re:Maybe (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617291)

You are 100% right. That is why I'm not a professional web developer and never want to be. The little web development I do is frustrating enough. Web development is hard, long, frustrating work. All you pro web dudes have my sincere kudos. Seriously.

Microsoft is collapsing into itself (4, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616707)

Sounds like Microsoft has gotten far too enormous to be manageable by most people if Bill Gates has no clue what's going on any more. Vista barely got out the door, it's a lame duck OS, and now at least one of the major software development teams has gone into seclusion, and no one important noticed. Wouldn't be surprised if more problematic tripwires and land mines were hiding under rocks at Redmond. MS needs new management, it's silly that the founders of a tiny itsy-bitsy Microsoft are still in control of one of the largest, sprawling corporations in the world.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

kurokaze (221063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616775)

I think you're on to something here. Perhaps spinning off divisions wouldn't be a bad idea after all.

There's no way Gates or Ballmer can keep track of this massive company.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616843)

it's silly that the founders of a tiny itsy-bitsy Microsoft are still in control of one of the largest, sprawling corporations in the world.
Part of that is because those guys MADE IT into one of the largest, sprawling corporations in the world. We laugh and joke about the "failure" that Vista is and such, and yeah, I hate it, and most of their software sucks, but they know how to work the market.

It's hard to argue about the business since of a company that is still bringing in profits on the order of billions of dollars per year.

And to some degree, it's understandable why they are how they are. I don't mean the issue of software quality, I mean th DRM, and subscription licensing, and such. Do I like that stuff? Heck no. Down the MS! But if somebody told me I could rake in what Bill Gates has if I took my company down that road? Sign me up!

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (4, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616939)

"Part of that is because those guys MADE IT into one of the largest, sprawling corporations in the world."

Different managers are required for different stages of a corporation's existence. Sure, they made the corporation what it is today, but they also mismanaged it into a crippled, bloated, low-growth, living entirely off of prior achievements, slug. It's an axiom that after a certain point, the best thing the founders of a corporation can do for their creation is leave, and I don't think Microsoft has proven to be an exception. Microsoft should have re-invented itself at some point during the 95/NT4 era, and instead calcified into the Microsoft of today. Perhaps the DOJ inquisition had a lot to do with that, but a corporation is forced to live under the regime it finds itself subject to.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

zaxus (105404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617021)

Quoth the parent:
It's hard to argue about the business since of a company...

Since refers to passage of time.
Sense refers to sound practical judgment.

Now you know; and knowing is half the battle! GI JOE! :-)

Sorry for the nitpick, but this really bugged me for some reason.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617329)

It's hard to argue about the business since of a company that is still bringing in profits on the order of billions of dollars per year.

They could be bringing in many more billions of dollars per year if they would split their corporation into a group of smaller corporations.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616881)

It's an amazing world we live in where roughly a year after Vista was released it has 90 million users -- more than all Macs in operation -- and its considered a "lame duck". Their recent quarterly results might disagree with you.

Look, I dislike IE as well, I've been using Firefox since it was a sub-1.0 release, but let's save hyperbole for a more appropriate context.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (4, Informative)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617007)

"It's an amazing world we live in where roughly a year after Vista was released it has 90 million users"

No it has not in any way, shape or form 90 million users. Microsoft has sold 90 million Windows Vista/XP/NT/2000 licenses in total. The funny thing is, any windows license sold by Microsoft since Vista was released is counted as a Windows Vista license.

If you have a fortune 500 company and buy a million licenses to deploy XP they will count as Windows Vista license no matter how you buy them. Then we have all the home users that come to me with their new computer with Vista installed wanting me to install XP and delete Vista from their computers.

Vista is a lame duck considering it was 6 years since XP and there is a pent up want for a new OS. Six years of anticipation and vaporware turned into only minor improvement and in many cases regression.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617043)

People buy OS X because they want OS X. People buy Vista because they are too ignorant and lazy to know better. Did you see http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/157210 [slashdot.org] ? Corporations are avoiding Vista, cognizant consumers are insisting on XP, after a year OEMs still have to offer XP instead of or as an alternative to Vista. For a Windows release, that's a stunning failure.

Their recent quarterly results show that Vista sales are disappointing.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

secPM_MS (1081961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617299)

I was a user of OSX 10.1. I moved to Windows. OSX is elegant. It's life cycle cost is far higher than Windows. With Windows I get support for 7 to 10 years. If I buy Apple, I pay more for hardware and then have to spend another ~$150 every 3 years to update the OS and maintain security support. Apple costs a lot more. It has its rabid fanboys and girls, but I am a practical engineer. My wife and kids can use the Windows systems without problems and I can continue to use software that I have had for years. I have updated to Office 12 due to its greater security, but otherwise I have bought little software for years (my kids still play soem DOS games I had 15+ years ago, run on DosBox). By the way, I am sucesfully running Vista at home on a rasonably modern system and am running XP on an old Win 98 box for my son. My iBook is in a drawer waiting to be recycled after burning out its 4th motherboard.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (2, Insightful)

UnrefinedLayman (185512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617057)

The number of Vista users primarily is determined by the number of computers that come preinstalled with Vista. Windows 95's release, when people lined up and charged into the stores like it was Black Friday, is the appropriate contrast.

Windows Vista's sales numbers to people with computers that can run it but already run XP are low, and that's what's being discussed.

Re:Microsoft is collapsing into itself (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617077)

I think what the post meant - when referring to Vista as a lame duck OS - is that uptake of Vista on machines already running Windows XP is relatively modest. Visa has simply not generated a great deal of enthusiasm and, in the case large enterprises, raised enough concern, that most people would rather no upgrade.

However, this has limited impact on Microsoft's bottom line because most consumer hardware vendors deploy one kind of MS OS or another and Microsoft gets paid and enterprise IT shops have subscriptions to Microsoft gets paid.

So yes, it is possible for Vista to be a 'lame duck' while Microsoft continues to rake in the $$$.

]{

Actually this runs across products (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616713)

For a year or more now Microsoft has been getting tighter and tighter about what information about their plans and dates can get out. It has been really bad getting info even when you are on one of their TAP programs. Date for the RTM? Hell - you won't even get a date for the next Beta version most of the time. What's in? What's out? Not a chance - you'll get it when you get it. It is so bad now that they need a Minster of Truth to determine what to tell people - http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071207/director-windows-disclosure/ [istartedsomething.com] .

Maybe.... (-1, Troll)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616725)

There is a lack of communication because MS wants it to be a complete surprise that they are rewriting IE to be exactly like FF. Can you imagine it? FF in an IE tab? Perhaps a GreaseMonkey API to import scripts directly, and best of all, a IE BSOD when trying to load an IIS page?

injured pride? (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616727)

Maybe he just doesn't want to talk to anyone because you've all hurt his feelings? After trying so hard to get IE7 out of Firefox's shadow and still ending up getting shit from the community for not doing a good enough job he's probably just crying in a corner somewhere, plotting revenge at any cost.

How can they be working on IE8... (4, Funny)

SpartacusJones (848951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616733)

before Opera 9.5/FF3 are released and they have new ideas to copy?

Re:How can they be working on IE8... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617373)

There are plenty of ideas to copy. I mean, for IE7 they took tabbed browsing, mixed up the UI and called that a major release. Maybe for version 8 they might take XHTML support, although I'd rather imagine they include a spellchecker, put the menu bar at the bottom of the window and call the result IE8.

Re:How can they be working on IE8... (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617469)

before Opera 9.5/FF3 are released and they have new ideas to copy?

Because they still don't have the feature set of the last crop of free browsers. They are going to promise the same things again and DRM.

don't tell the boss (2)

Plunky (929104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616739)

Yeah, well he didn't think there was anything secret going on - but maybe they just didn't tell him either!

They don't care? (2, Insightful)

bushboy (112290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616755)

... when you have 90% browser market share, I guess thier feeling is "who cares?"

It certainly seems that way.

You only need to look at the mess they made of the GUI in ie7 to understand just how far off course the internet explorer team have sailed.

It's a damn pain to develop for.
Then again, so was ie6 - hmm, and ie5 and yeah, even ie4 ...

The problem is, you can't ignore 90% market share - catch 22.

90%?? Maybe in the 90's... (3, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616869)

um... hate to tell you this but they haven't been 90% for a LONG time. In fact alot of studies are showing Firefox with 20-35% marketshare, Opera with 5-8%, Safari with 3-5%. Even if you take those lowest figures, the combination of all versions of IE would only have approx. 72% market share... 52% at worse.

Re: More like 80% (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616989)

IE usage is closer to 80% [upsdell.com] , but it is still dropping [wikipedia.org] . Give it a few more years, and it'll be down to 70%.

Re: More like 80% (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617119)

Depends on what study you read; in Germany, Firefox usage is as high as 35%. The study you read was most likely limited to a small subset of American families. In the European Union, the average Firefoc usage is 30%. Amongst developers, the average usage is 80%.

It all depends on who does the study and where the study was done. Which is why I quote a broad range that that a single source because no single source will ever be correct.

Re:90%?? Maybe in the 90's... (1)

Datasage (214357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617159)

Depends on your market. For the site I manage, IE usage is about 85%. FF is at about 10%, Safari 2% and Opera is to small to even count.

But then most of our customers are not very fluent with technology.

Re:90%?? Maybe in the 90's... (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617499)

Totally know what you mean. I ran a technology savvy site and Firefox was nearly 80% of the sites web stats; Boing Boing (not a tech site necessarily) has also reported similar stats as have others amongst people who use the internet on a daily basis. Sites who appeal to regular web users will see far higher Firefox usage generally.

Reverse-engineering Opera is hard work (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616759)

Who am I kidding, Microsoft wouldn't dare make a product that conforms to standards.

And so it begins... (4, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616787)

"To which Bill replied: 'I'll have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE"

As Bill begins to leave the company, the heralded Microsoft development teams start to act like your normal "joe IT" shop... First Vista... now IE...

Your powers are weak, old man... :)

Hmm... (3, Funny)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616791)

'I'll have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about what we're doing with IE.'

He, like, totally sounds like a Silicon Valley girl.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Ty (15982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617015)

I'll like, have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch], like, what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's not like some deep secret about, like, what we're doing with IE.

That would be more true to form...

Re:Hmm... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617529)

"Like, I'll totally have to ask [IE general manager] Dean [Hachamovitch] what the hell is going on, I mean, we're not, there's totally not, like, some deep secret about what we're doing with IE or something."
-- like, what Bill Gates actually said

Standard compliancy is most important for next IE (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616823)

At my company we've had to just drop IE for now, and push out Firefox on all clients.
This is OK for our internal users, but impossible for any external site because of the installed base of legacy CRAP.
Microsoft need to fix:
- CSS support
- DOM support in their javascript implementation
- XHTML support
- SVG rendering
Only then will we ever look at IE again.
We also need to be clear on the patent situation surrounding technologies such as Silverlight on platforms other than Windows, before we invest any time and effort in such technologies. We don't want to end up supporting a technology that Microsoft plan on attacking on non-windows platforms.
Microsoft are making a fool of themselves with IE, and severely damaging their reputation with developers. I hope they will offer an upgrade of internet explorer for Windows 2000, XP, and Vista when they have finally sorted out their shoddy rendering library. Internet Explorer 7 was a poor attempt at improving what remains the worst web browser that is still considered current (at least by some).

Web, MS Market Power, and IE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616855)

One can write a maseter's/doctorate thesis on the subject. A good ./ thread can pull salient points, I think.

The "Secret" (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616909)

The next IE version will be like Word for the Web. Not just a browser but an editor to completely interact with content. Ok, I made it up. But the web was never intended to be for "browsing" only.

Expectations, Transparency, Openness (4, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616911)

In many ways, IE7 disappointed people. Many users don't like the changed interface. It has compatibility problems with IE6-only sites & apps. (Why this surprised anyone, I don't know.) And web developers wanted it to go much further beyond IE6's capabilities than it ultimately did. So I can buy the idea that they don't want to get people's expectations up too far.

But there are many possible degrees of transparency. You don't have to take the Mozilla approach where every little change is visible to the public. Over the past year or two, Opera has managed to do a good job of keeping people aware that new stuff is coming down the pike without actually giving away the goods before their announcements.

Sure, sometimes it means that reaction is a bit underwhelmed when people build up some huge expectation over a hinted-at feature, and it turns out to be something much more mundane (Opera Link, for example -- incredibly useful, but in its current form not revolutionary). But anyone following Opera developers' blogs can tell that yes, they're working on the next version, and could pick up some vague clues as to some of the planned features and capabilities.

With IE8, no one without an NDA knew whether Microsoft had spent a year on design, a year on coding, or just took a year off. The IE8 blog asked us not to take silence for inaction, but what else should we have assumed?

Re:Expectations, Transparency, Openness (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21616983)

The Visual Studio crew push out community previews that are practically alpha quality for developers to chew on. Visual Studio 2008 was a classic example of this. Those guys were spinning out betas for about a year now.

Developer people like being feed little trinkets of free stuff. It makes us feel like we are being listened to and appreciated.

Bill is the CHAIRMAN, Not a Developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21616965)

From Wikipedia:

On June 16, 2006, Gates announced that he would move to a part-time role within Microsoft (leaving day-to-day operations management)[52] in July 2008 to begin a full-time career in philanthropy, but would remain as chairman.

This is not his fault, leave him alone. It pains me deeply to write this, but it is not HIM.

(typed in firefox)

Bill's "Power" at MS... (1)

Ty (15982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617049)

This is a sincere question - wondering if anyone can answer it here. How much influence does Gates have left at MS now that he has left?

Re:Bill's "Power" at MS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21617315)

Basically, he still runs the technical and strategy aspects of the company, and leaves the crap to Ballmer and the other executive suckers.

- Anonymous borg drone, one of many who use Firefox

There has been conversation? (3, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617097)

This conversation [between Web developers and the IE team] seems to have been pretty much shut down...

It may not have been face-to-face, but for almost a decade, it seems that the conversation between IE devs and web devs has pretty much been...
Web devs: Fuck you!
IE devs: Fuck you!

Why does the IE team hate standards so much? It's not like they don't know how to make things work. IE5 for Mac came out in 2000 and was pretty awesome--it even supported transparent PNGs with nothing more than an <img> tag!

Dear IE team: thanks for inventing AJAX. Now please go make everything else work. kthxbye.

(Note: I know for a fact that the IE team has many talented and nice people. They (and we) are just victims of horrible decisions being made further up the chain. So this vitriol is really directed at management.)

What an original name! (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617109)

It may have been coincidental, but a day after the Holzschlag-Gates exchange, Hachamovitch disclosed on the team's blog that the next version would be called IE8.


What an original name! What a surprise! Who would have guessed that after IE4 came IE5, which was replaced by IE6, and then IE7 (which followed IE6) would be replaced with IE8?!??!!

I vote that all MS products move to a numerical numbering scheme, a-la Fedora and Suse. Why don't we call the next version of Windows "7"!

For Chrissake! (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617113)

Does that dork not have a cellphone and can call up the folks in charge right away to get an anwer?

Nope, and I won't go into speculatons why - just look at the Bill Gates deposition videos and you'll know. That guy has it thick or he would not be who he is by bilking...yadayadayada

Developer overload (3, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617205)

Usually I find that any company wants an active dialog with its user base. It undeniably helps you make a better product.

When that dialog does not occur usually it is because the product team are overloaded in terms of the features they have to implement in the time frame that they've been allocated. Sometimes you just don't have time to engage with external entities to the degree that you'd like, or at all. On a product as significant as IE has proven to be in influencing defacto standards, that is quite dangerous.

Definition of "transparency" (5, Funny)

Jay L (74152) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617295)

When questioned further, Gates claimed that "When I said we'd be more transparent, I just meant we'd use more alpha-blending. You know, like Vista."

if you don't have anything nice to say... (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21617507)

They may just not want to say "we're waiting to see what the next version of safari/firefox/etc. does that IE7 doesn't do, so we can copy it in an impractical but whiz-bang way".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>