Oh no you didn't.

Uh, no. Firefox is for hippies and rebel scum. :P Internet Explorer is for faithful and productive citizens of the empire.

I categorically never had a key named Lexy line.

Hedgemistress wrote:

Internet Explorer is for faithful and productive citizens of the empire.

I used to be faithful, indeed. But the evils of Microsoft have finally gotten to me. Nowadays however, they seem much kinder, with things like a freely-available Visual Studio Express. They've bumped up a few rungs in my book.

I guess I'm just an unfaithful one, sleeping with both browsers at the same time. I use a Firefox extension that allows me to switch to the IE rendering engine.

So true.
IE > Firefox

Something followed by 14% of the market is not standard. :P

if(browser != Firefox) fuck.Off()

Standards or no, Internet Explorer is unstable and renders pages in a fashion that doesn't follow the way that a page should logically render. The standards weren't written in hieroglyphics, and Microsoft is one of the contributors to the W3C standards. Yet in spite of their privileged position of membership, they fail to uphold them.

It's kinda like the U.S. and its policies on using white phosphorous, nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, etc. The rest of the world shouldn't follow the same poor example, even if they're individually weaker.

If anyone were to be the one to set standards, I'd say Microsoft since they already have a head-start, with Google to take office if for some reason they cannot fulfill their duties.

Microsoft pretty must insists that their way is law. Google is pretty much "Anything you can do, I can do better! ..for free!"

And to LordOL. Stow the pitchforks for a while. BYOND needs her, and you'll get used to her. =p


Jtgibson wrote:

Yet in spite of their privileged position of membership, they fail to uphold them.

Like how they show tooltips for the IMG tag's ALT attribute, in stead of TITLE?

Unstable? I haven't had IE crash since I upgraded to 7... Firefox has crashed on me twice since I downloaded it. Once when I was editing a story. I have NEVER uninstalled a program as fast as I did Firefox after that happened... I think my hard drive actually blistered.

Maybe the page I was using wasn't optimized for Firefox (though, shouldn't matter, since I was paging around within a fricking text field. What the hell kind of browser standards can cause a browser to crash when using a text field? Granted it's got some fancy javascript and CSS formatting stuff in it... but still...)... but again, 14% of the market share. The onus is on the browser makers to make sure their product works with the webpages, not vice versa.

It's kinda like the U.S. and its policies on using white phosphorous, nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, etc. The rest of the world shouldn't follow the same poor example, even if they're individually weaker.

No, it's nothing like that. You're talking about what is morally right vs. an arbitrary set of standards.

I understand that there is a "greater good" here... I understand the benefit of standards... which is why I say, ditch Mozilla, or bring it up to the market standard.

The vast majority of internet users aren't web developers... even ones who host/run a web site. They're consumers of web development products. Because the vast majority of browsers are IE, the vast majority of web development products available... especially in the "better than free but not quite professional level cost" bracket... are optimized for IE over Mozilla, or not at all for Mozilla.

The Mozillites will say that the problem is with the developers of these tools, but they're doing what makes sense. 14%, people. You don't make money pandering to 14% of the market.

The nifty menu bars I use on my webpage? They don't work quite right in Firefox. I've got a workaround, but it involves me not doing everything I could be doing with them. I didn't make this menubar tool, mind you... I bought it with the page template from a professional Joomla development company.

In IE, it works just fine. In Mozilla anything, there's a couple glitches. Should I not use it because of Mozilla users? Is there some actual -consequence- beyond the fact that some people wouldn't be able to use the menus? Like the internet breaks? Mothers miscarry and cows give curdled milk?

Of course, the resentment of that 14% is a force far more powerful than mere numbers would indicate... as responses to this thread show... so I do the workaround.

If I knew more about CSS, I could probably put in a fix.

But it sucks that I have to do either or face moral outrage.

I wouldn't say "Get a real browser!" if the community of Firefox users as a whole were prepared to acknowledge the fact that they are early adopters of a as yet unpopular standard... and thus can't expect their favored product to work exactly right all the time with the entire infrastructure of the world. I'm not saying you should have an inferiority complex about your browser choice (though as long as everybody keeps up the superiority complex, I'll act that way for reasons of cosmic balance)...

...but lay off the IE bashing.

IE works.

Firefox works, but it requires finagling.

Consumers will use IE.