Feeling like a 2nd class citizen

john.godzero at gmail.com john.godzero at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 02:38:52 GMT 2007

Oops, bad spell check.

 mess of mashed code (my the original programmers - buy
the unwashed masses who cut-and-pastes).

should be:

mess of mashed code (not the original programmers - but
the unwashed masses who cut-and-pastes).

On 11/27/07, john.godzero at gmail.com <john.godzero at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've done some web development... so I'll chime in.
> I tested my sites against IE6(and later IE7), Konqueror and Firefox (a
> bit of Opera, lynx etc too).
> Konqueror is by far the most standards compliant web renderer there is.
> If the standard says " do X, then Y then Z"... konqueror will render
> correctly. IEx will NOT. Firefox does much better, Opera - OK, etc.
> The problem seems to be IE is designed for badly designed websites.
> You MUST be visiting sites that fall under this category.
> There are many sites that are "designed" for IE, and many MANY more
> sites that are designed by people who read "HOWTOs" that were written
> by people who only knew IE.
> Then there's the addition of non WWW elements in a WWW page (such as
> flash, activeX components, etc) that I believe do not belong there.
> This is way overused. If you want to disribute a video game... don't
> use the .html suffix (unless it's purely for fun/experimentation/see
> what you can do).
> I suspect that in 2007, anyone who complains any browser is inferior
> to IE must be spending his/her online time at myspace. What a
> crap-tacular mess of mashed code (my the original programmers - buy
> the unwashed masses who cut-and-pastes).
> If you want to go to a site that harkens back to the AOL "ME TOO"
> days, use IE. Nothing else will suffice.
> Else, Konqueror will 100% satisfy.
> WOW, got that off my chest.
> -John
> On 11/27/07, Francois-Denis Gonthier <neumann at lostwebsite.net> wrote:
> > On November 26, 2007 10:21:34 pm reuben firmin wrote:
> > > Does anybody on this list really use konqueror as their primary browser?
> > Is
> > > there a good reason that kubuntu can't start shipping firefox in
> addition?
> > > It's all about the user experience, right? (BTW, I love konqueror, but
> > > strictly as a file manager / random-net-protocol client.)
> >
> > I've used Konqueror as my primary browser for a long time, and still do
> > while
> > I am at work.  Since I use it as my filemanager too, it's always there,
> > always ready, and always much faster to start than FireFox.
> >
> > Konqueror is perfectly functionnal for all the sites that are related to
> my
> > work, but I've grown accustomed to start FireFox to access problematic
> > sites,
> > and even FireFox in a 32 bit chroot for sites than needed 32 bit plugins
> > such
> > as Flash.
> >
> > Some weeks ago, I decided to give Opera a try.  While it's not as
> integrated
> > in KDE as Konqueror, it does pretty much everything FireFox and Konqueror
> > did
> > when I used them both.  I've force-installed the 32 bit Opera on my 64 bit
> > system to allow 32 bits plugins.  Of course, I did that before I knew
> Gutsy
> > was distributing nspluginwrapper.
> >
> > Personnaly, I don't like FireFox much, and won't even try to advocate the
> > inclusion of Opera by default in Kubuntu.  If enough people get behind
> > FireFox then it should be included by default in Kubuntu, but I would not
> > like it set by default simply because of the fact that this is not KDE
> > browser.
> >

More information about the kubuntu-devel mailing list