Quick links to various main topics in my blog

And of course companies won't start investing in games for other platforms until they have the penetration to guarantee any new game will ship enough units to justify the development costs.

The move towards multimedia games means that any new game requires a vast investment in content - the game engine is no longer a significant part of the development effort - and so the recent advances in open source games development tools is unlikely to be enough to counterbalance this effect.

It's not going to change until either the fad switches to games that require less content creation (unlikely, I suspect), or some other platform gains enough market share for other reasons to justify the game development costs; and because the costs continue to increase, so does the penetration threshold required.

Hugo

I'm as against one particular company providing operating systems as anyone but, I do want standardisation. I want this as an application developer I do not want to have to compile / re-engineer my application for many different platforms (Mac, Linux, ms). I'm aware that languages such as Java have been around for ages but I have never taken to java as a language, certainly not for developing desktop applications. The fact that MS have never truly adopted the language mean that distribution of my application is a real pain. Certainly beyond the ability of most users.

This aside the GUI elements of Java have always been somewhat lacking, this too until recent is a major criticism of Linux. Maybe its familiarity with an operating system, maybe not as I took to apple allot faster than Linux. I'm a strong believer that an interface should be "comfortable" and easy to use, "just because I can does not mean that I want to" , this is one of my criticism's of Linux in the past. Sure I can type several commands to modify some setting or other, id rather click a couple of buttons, it means that I don't have to remember many tedious commands. I'm personally not interested in the inner workings of how my computer works, as the majority of the general public aren't, I just want to use it to solve a problem.

Now on to browsers, Internet Explorer used to be rather terrible in terms of standard implementation, I know this as I cut my teeth building cross browser compliant HTML websites. The reason Microsoft gave for not being standards compliant is that the standards we not advanced enough, that the standards were holding back the internet in terms of visual layout. As soon as the standards improved ECMA script, CSS 2, Microsoft were welcoming in the use.

These days the current version of Internet Explorer, is reasonably comparable to that of Fire fox, regarding the way you need to code a web page. Certainly Active X is still a huge bug bare, but this is down to the designer, a MS browser can use Java, or flash as a replacement for Active X. It is lazy or narrow minded programmers, and corporations who would like to produce the cheapest option even if this means that it will only serve 93% of the population, these are the people who are to blame.

One of the common reasons that a site may display errors on say fire fox is due to bad coding not standards differences with IE. IE has always had the ability to ignore or bypass bad HTML errors (unclosed tags, etc), Mozilla based browsers have always been a little stricter. I believe this traditionally was due to the way they rendered the HTML.

Until recent I used to be a IE user, why did I switch ? Well basically I because of the recent security issues. I'm personally not interested as to what the badge the browser has on it, I just want something to view web pages with. IE is as good as any when this is concerned, and it comes installed.

Now im using fire fox, is it a great browser ? To be honest its just a browser it does what is says on the tin, that's all I care about. Sure I like the tabbing feature, besides that as long as I can see web pages I'm happy.

Now back to security issues, sure MS has been guilty of providing operating systems with a few holes, but let us remember that because Microsoft operating systems are the most common they are therefore going to be the biggest target for abuse. I would like to bet that if the same attention was paid to fire fox a few security holes would be uncovered.

Sure I'm against any company holding a Monopoly, and as far as browsers are concerned, do they affect the competition ? For one reason probably, I cant think of anyone who provides something better at the same price, after all its just a browser (please refer the the above paragraph concerning security).

Nic

|| | |||||| |||||||||| || ||||
Nic

Regarding IE and security - the problem is that IE doesn't sandbox untrusted executables and, since the MHTML engine is a core underpinning of the OS running with admin privs, a cross-domain vulnerability means that your Windows box ends up being ownable.

In contast, other browsers typically run as unprivileged users and specifically sandbox scripts/in-page executables etc, so the chances of a catastrophic result of any particular vulnerability are much reduced.

MS's default security model is too open, and even if users have the tools to close the obvious holes (via preferences etc) then the typical user won't employ them.
--
simon

With reference to the Box model criticism, on www.positioniseverything.net im afraid to say that for this one i am with Microsoft if i create the instance of a Div and i set its width then i want the div to be x pixels in width not x pixels + the padding etc.

Regarding the articles comment of "It might just be a mis-guided attempt to "make it simple" for newbie coders". I agree it probably is and i would argue that this is a good thing too.

The vast majority of people do not have indepth knowledge of HTML standards, nor do they care or maybe are they able. Does that mean that they shouldnt be able to communicate their message, or does that mean that what they have to say is not interesting ?

Even if every browser was 100% standards complient then we are still going to have to muck about with the layout due to cross-platform minor differences in width of a check box, is there a google bar loaded, does the browser have a side bar ?

Again im not singing Microsofts praises or saying that IE is the best browser in the world i couldn't give a toss. Its just a browser I only want to surf the web. I want to view web pages, many of which have been created by people with little or no knowledge care of programming or standards.

Yes IE is ingrained into the operating system, yes most hacks are expolits of ActiveX technology. As far as other browsers go im not aware if they implement ActiveX technology so of course the vunerablilities will be reduced.

Where there is a will there is a way, if MS disapear of the planet tommorow i bet by next week a new virus is out, exploiting the new technology.

The twats who are creating these virus's / exploites are the one's who should be persecuted. Just becasue I may leave my door open does it make it right to burgle me.

I understand why the possibly ill concieved security has been employed and that is due to accesability. I also understand the complexity of un-doing this error.

I think we have alot to thank accesibility in technology for. Every time i sit and eat i can do so because of the popularity and the spread of personal computing. This is due to an accesable and easy to use platform. If this means that we have to endure a rough ride from time to time so be it.

I love the net and i hope it has a long life. We do have a choice, I dont have to use MS platforms browsers etc. But the fact is that people don't care they just want to surf. That is the problem not price, not because one particular company is producing shite software.

If i someone crashes into my bike and I'm hurt.

Is that BMW's fault for not ensuring adequate protection or for restricting the speed ?

Or is it maybe mine for not being aware of danger enough, or the person who harms me ?

Instead of spending millions of pounds complaining and twisting about anti - competition, and attacks due to lax security, requirements for nanny treatment of users.

Consider the damage a ruling that a software provider is responsible for the uses inability / irresponsibility would do for open source software.

Why don't we spend more time and energy on education and policing. I for one would like the hackers and spammers locked up.

I still stand by the fact that in terms of useability and productivity you have Apple then Microsoft, Linux is a poor third. Because of problems with software for Apple I put Microsoft on top.

|| | |||||| |||||||||| || ||||
Nic

im afraid to say that for this one i am with Microsoft if i create the instance of a Div and i set its width then i want the div to be x pixels in width not x pixels + the padding etc.

Missed point error. We're talking about standards, and the W3C standard is the other way. A philosophical argument about what we might mean by 'the width of a div' isn't the issue.

Does that mean that they shouldnt be able to communicate their message

Not at all - again, that's not the argument here. By the same token, neophyte HTML authors probably aren't going to be thinking about 'pixel widths' in any case, they're going to have a drag and drop tool where they pull things around until they 'look about right'.

Even if every browser was 100% standards complient then we are still going to have to muck about with the layout due to cross-platform minor differences in width of a check box, is there a google bar loaded, does the browser have a side bar ?

There you go, thinking like a designer again :0) There's a perfectly adequate and sophisticated mechanism for delivering appearance tailored to the client software in use - CSS. But if the same, correct, CSS applied to the same, correct, HTML renders crap in IE and fine in Mozilla - who is at fault? It's not the designer. If you happen to want a funky checkbox 30 pixels square, you can style it thusly:

If the Googlebar/Sidebar is within the display area of the rendered HTML, there's something seriously wrong with the browser!

Where there is a will there is a way, if MS disapear of the planet tommorow i bet by next week a new virus is out, exploiting the new technology.

I'm not denying that, although more diversity of hosts reduces the effectiveness of any particular vector of infection.

Just becasue I may leave my door open does it make it right to burgle me.

In an ideal world, I'd agree. However, in a less than ideal world your only sensible option is to either lock your door or resign yourself to being an easy target. If it's impossible to secure your home, either because you can't find the keyhole in the door (buried deep in preferences) or you've got a gaping hole in the wall (no firewall) or because the act of locking the door makes it impossible for you to go about your business (disable ActiveX to be safe) - maybe you should think about moving house :-)

Consider the damage a ruling that a software provider is responsible for the uses inability / irresponsibility would do for open source software.

Who would issue such a ruling? We don't yet have a World Government (at least not one that I'm prepared to take any notice of), so this doesn't seem a very realistic situation.

Most users don't want to be educated (you as near as said as much yourself)

Users can't be effectively policed (who's going to do the policing?)

The Internet is a collection of technologies that only interoperate *at all* because of the standards (RFCs) that allow arbitrary applications to be built around them.

I'm not saying that MS and IE actually do the equivalent of drive on the wrong side of the road, but they do have a tendency to drive along otherwise well maintained roads dragging a plough behind them, ripping up the surface for everyone else and leaving others to pick up the pieces and do the repairs.

Because of problems with software for Apple I put Microsoft on top.

I can't judge your experiences, but my experience is different to that.

--
simon

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/comments/DaneseCooper
--
simon