People who feel strongly for or against. So if there are more haters than there are people who care to fight the haters, guess who "wins" the vote? I suppose that I'm assuming some kind of proprotionality in upvoting or downvoting, maybe even two varieties of proportionality. First, I'm assuming that Windows-users are represented proportionally with the general population in the Hacker News population.
Second, I'm assuming that Windows-users and Linux-users would be equally inclined to up- or down-vote any given story. That is, the proportion of voters your "small minority" that votes is the same in Windows-users population and Linux-users population.
Your point about Haters vs Haters-fighters is well taken. JonoW on March 18, root parent prev next [—]. I would imagine the average hacker on HN would be more anti-Microsoft than your average man on the street. CJefferson on March 18, prev next [—]. Libraries such as JQuery of course have to support major versions of all browsers. In particular in this case much of the work was disabling workarounds required in earlier versions of IE!
Mozilla actually run the unit tests of most major libraries as part of their regular test suite to make sure that the Internet will by-and-large still work on any new release. So I think the author has a valid point here, new browsers shouldn't break existing libraries this badly. Perhaps, but as the parent post had stated: the changes to JQuery were to get rid of workarounds for past versions of IE.
If Microsoft kept bug-for-bug compatible with older versions of IE, they'd be lambasted for that. Now you're lambasting them for actually fixing things.
Rock, meet hard place. Webkit recently and Opera last year also incorporated jQuery's test suite into their own. And truth be told, we need this update more than any other. First, although many would like to forget it, IE has been a pioneer in what we now refer to as modern web standards. They were innovators. How we see the Web today is a direct result of their early work. The frequent release cycles and automatic updates by default of other browsers will minimize this problem, but given how slow Internet Explorer has always been with major versions, it may well become the IE6 of !
Microsoft Connect: approximately 5, open reports and mine is among them. Oh dear! The notion that coders, designers and service providers should patch their code for new browsers is scary. If the issues are severe enough to need patching before a new browser version comes out, how bad will things really get?
Recalling the days of hasLayout , these problems seem to be the same ones we have seen before. Yes, Microsoft has come a long way since IE6, and yes, it is doing its best to keep the browser up to date. Microsoft has always had an effective marketing strategy with IE with its substantially biased claims and inaccurate research.
Mozilla posted this to show how inaccurate the claims are about IE. All of the other browsers have their share of flaws and bugs, missing technologies, and incomplete spec implementations. However, the problem with Microsoft is partly due to how it portrays itself and the frustrating way it sometimes goes one step forward, two steps back. They take full advantage of the underlying platform to render graphics with the GPU, compile and execute JavaScript across multiple CPU cores and ensure that web applications run as close as possible to the same speed as native applications.
But in terms of the overall speed of the browser itself and the intuitiveness of the interface compared to Chrome and Opera , the differences are still quite staggering. The loading times of windows and tabs are not favorable, and regardless of the rendering engine, the interface is not as refined as the ones in other browsers. The RSS and Atom feed notification feature has inexplicably disappeared from the address bar, so instead, we must use the less obvious and hidden by default command bar.
But it's clear that all three are following the same concept that Dean Hachamovitch, product manager in charge of IE, has stated: "People go to the Web for sites, not the browser. Pin sites to the taskbar: Designating sites as favorites was cute when the Internet was something we visited, not lived on. Now that I live on it, I want one-click access to many of my sites, and having the ability to pin them to the IE9 taskbar makes it much easier to reach for those sites. Firefox or Chrome can't claim this capability, perhaps because they aren't developing both Windows and IE9 and don't have access to the taskbar, as Microsoft does.
Here are the latest Insider stories. More Insider Sign Out. Also, I want to back up my previous post with data, according to netmarketshare.
The market share of those old versions would be much smaller. Also the point of the article is that nowadays you can only run those old versions on old, insecure version of Windows. For people who do there are probably many more things not working as should, plus they are much more vulnerable to hacks and exploits.
I am not using any version of IE, I only used chrome and that is better than others. Internet Explorer should be destroyed. In an ideal world I would only ever support Google Chrome but that ain't gonna happen. Also when doing development for large businesses like banks, all their office computers often run old versions of windows due to bespoke software therefore they have very old version of IE that has to be supported.
I think maybe for public facing websites this kind of view could be taken although I can understand it would be sensitive eg. But for internal web applications that you have to support old version of IE, I can't see this changing anytime soon.
IE8, believe it or not is still in usage and espacially depending on which audience your site targets for example a medical company you will most certanly see that IE8 is used alot more than most think. This is because Windows XP do not support upgrades higher than that and users that still are on IE8 are users that does not understand why they should upgrade.
The only analytics that matter are your own. If IE8 vanishes from your stats, then by all means ignore it. A quick solution would be to charge additionally for everything that goes beyond modern browsers. The financial argument is usually the only one that works. If you're going to support these browsers without additional cost, then it nevers ends - even if, let's say, YouTube stops supporting a certain browser and puts a banner on top of the site. Supporting IE8 and up is an accessibility requirement here, and with good reason; users with assistive technology may not be able to upgrade.
You put your wishes as developer first if you must, but you'll be exposing your clients to possible lawsuits and your company deserves to go out of business. David Your lawsuit argument would also work for the security requirement.
So in reality, the client could be sued twice. First for not adhering to accessibility requirements and then for not adhering to basic security practices. I would think, and I really hope, security always comes first when it comes to devices connected to the internet.
And that's what this article is all about. Dere friend, David Dylan is correct not only for businesses and average customers, but any sort of mass outlet. As a technician, i am always implementing stable software, that som mindless auto-update fetischist will perceive as "outdated" and thus "insecure".
If an outlet verbosely excludes my software, i will tweak it to look newer. And if the content then turns out to be backward incompatible, i will curse at them and take my business elsewhere. You don't get to tell me how to manage security on my systems.
Can you not see how such totalitarian attitude causes resentment? Jul 22, Lubos Kmetko Inside Xfive. Jun 30, Lubos Kmetko Web Development. Social media buttons are blamed for their poor performance and privacy offending nature. Get in touch Let us know your requirements and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
0コメント