Miscellaneous > Applications
Firefox myths
Mastertech:
--- Quote from: WMD ---Ok, Mastertech, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's say that the truth is, simply, that Firefox fanboys (per your definition and experience) have been banning you and supressing your page because they can't handle the truth.
This leaves me with one question: if that's the case, then why do you keep going to sites that are known to be filled with Firefox users and fanboys? After all, to quote you,
--- End quote ---
I simply go where I read blatant mistruths about the page or to defend myself. I really don't care if I get banned. I will always attempt to defend myself. It just so happens the ones that have the blatany lies about me are posted by Fanboys. I've posted in dozens of other forums without incident on this topic. A couple of the sites that I was banned from I was unaware of the moderation's fanboy status until I looked in their post history of the one who banned me. You can always see them pimping Firefox usually with one of the Myths I debunk on the page. Thus my page is a major embarrassment to their credibility since they provide advice for less knowledgeable users. But that is only a few case. The whole issue is much more complicated then that.
--- Quote from: WMD ---There's lots of places you could go and not have to put up with what you have. But apparently, you haven't done that, and gone primarily to places that you know (perhaps only subconciously, but still) have a large population of Firefox fanboys. That would make you a textbook internet troll.
--- End quote ---
But those places simply discuss the issue and do not lie about me or my page. I have no need to say anything there. Lets see so I start a post on another forum that WMD is gay and you come to defend yourself makes you an Internet Troll. Interesting theory. I only post to existing threads about my site if I see something untrue.
--- Quote from: WMD ---And don't tell me it's because David H. and his friends follow you around - that certainly isn't the case here, and if David H. suddenly did show up, I would be rather suspicious.
--- End quote ---
I'm surprised he has not shown up already. I am sure one of those who linked to his site would have told him by now. It is only a matter of time.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---It's the fucking SHELL. This means if you control IE you control the computer.
--- End quote ---
That is such nonsense. IE doesn't run Windows.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---Attacking the maker of an arguement is not a valid method of arguement, no. However attacking the sources (though not the makers of those sources) used in an argument is.
--- End quote ---
Why not stick to facts you can substantiate?
--- Quote from: toadlife ---The definition of "troll" is often influenced by the setting.
--- End quote ---
No the definition of "troll" is used in this case to try and discredit anything I say. This is one of many tactics used to divert attention away from the topic.
piratePenguin:
Hehheh!!!!
I just Googled "opera is fully standards" and look what I got!
http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2005/01/13/opera-for-free/
--- Quote ---CEO of Opera Software, Jon von Tetzchner told media:
--- End quote ---
toadlife:
--- Quote from: Mastertech ---
No the definition of "troll" is used in this case to try and discredit anything I say. This is one of many tactics used to divert attention away from the topic.
--- End quote ---
You are not getting what I am saying. You knew that this site is anti-microsoft, and by that nature most likely pro firefox, yet you came here and started to argue with everyone. Unless you're a total dimwit, you knew what response you would get. By definition you are trolling. It doesn't matter if the things you are saying are correct or not, nor does it matter if the people here's gripes about your site are correct or not.
Mastertech:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I didn't see you disprove this:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114532&postcount=34
--- End quote ---
Ah, it is hard to keep up with all these...
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---What makes you think that?
--- End quote ---
Your insistence upon adding in an excuse for it.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I FUCKING KNOW
--- End quote ---
Then stop bringing up argument outside of what is stated. I really don't care. I have had all of those before and it has no bearing on the page.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Telling "dumb" (as in: uninterested in how the web works, computers etc) people INCOMPLETE TRUTHS will make "dumb" people think Firefox sucks. Tell them the COMPLETE truth ("no web-browser is fully standards compliant") to bring things into perspective - they don't know that no web-browser is fully standards compliant, so some would think FF sucks, when it does not.
--- End quote ---
There are no "incomplete truths". Each Myth is debunked as is. I don't make any claims that any web browser is fully standards compliant. Maybe you and all the Firefox promoters can do a better job of this instead of misleading people into thinking Firefox is some meca of W3C standards support. This is not my job and has nothing to do with the Myth. Why would people think Firefox sucks if you tell them it does not fully support standards? Oh thats right because that is what the fanboys say about IE. Hum looks like the truth hurts more when you spread lies.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---No web-browser has complete support for all applicable W3C standards. Are you telling me that no web-browsers have standards-compliance as a strong point?
--- End quote ---
Since no browser has full standards compliance it is not possible to say. But in terms of how much standards compliance that is debateable and something only web developers care about. Honestly and you know that is true. End Users pander it but really don't care.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I've discussed acid2 with aloone_jonez here before. see also
You are absolutely fooling yourself if Acid2 results are your measure of how compliant a web-browser is. Where does ECMAscript fit in with it? SVG? XML, XSLT etc.? XHTML? DOM?
--- End quote ---
I never made this claim. Read carefully.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The CSS features tested in acid2 aren't that big on the grand scheme of things.
--- End quote ---
That is your opinion and there is no way to prove otherwise.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---EDIT: oh and the passing acid2 is on the agenda for gecko 1.9 which will power Firefox 3.0. It was never on the agenda for firefox 1, 1.5 or 2. I've developed web-pages, I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.
--- End quote ---
I am well aware of this claim but we will have to wait until FF 3.0 to be sure. How "good" Firefox supports standards is NOT the Myth.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I know the story, and I know that standards support on Firefox is very good - it's among the best in any web-browser.
--- End quote ---
No one is disputing whether Firefox has decent support for W3C standards. The Myth is clearly about Firefox fully supporting standards. Something many people were led to believe. Especially by the emails I received. This continues the same old point. You are creating your own arguments that have nothing to do with what I stated.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Your webpage is a good resource if someone wants a list of misconceptions ever made about Firefox, that's it. And these are misconceptions made by obvious non-geeks, I wouldn't expect too much from them. If as many people used Opera it wouldn't be hard to find people saying the same crap ("Opera is 100% standards compliant").
--- End quote ---
That is the whole purpose of the page and why it is called Firefox Myths! Read Myth Origins, I already stated this.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---For non-geeks who want to learn the absolute reality I'll be pointing them to David H's page. For people like that, you must bring things into perspective for them - otherwise they'll over react. Really, it's not a bit deal that FF isn't 100% standards compliant at this early stage. But it IS among the best browsers out there when it comes to standards compliance.
--- End quote ---
David's page doesn't even cover any of the real Myths out there. It is a page to pander to the Fanboys when they are confronted with the obvious truth on my page. The only reason people would overreact is if they were misled to begin with. I've noticed one of the most self-serving reasons that certain people (web developers) push Firefox is in their opinion to make their job easier. This is the most dishonest thing I can think of.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The W3C developed XHTML some time around 1999 - 7 years ago. Even in IE7, it is not supported. Send IE7 an XHTML document, as long as you're using the proper MIME type, IE won't even recognise it as a webpage!
--- End quote ---
Web developers always go off topic like this. Honestly people don't care about something they do not use. Completely irrelevant to the page.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The amount of CSS hacks out their to fix IE bugs is insane - I just don't bother with them. I develop my pages according to the specs and sometimes apply workarounds for the advanced stuff like DOM level 3 load & save which is only supported in Opera.
And what do you know? Even written to the specs - IE won't render them.
http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com I think there's one page there that works - the first page that just contains a single link. It's HTML 4.01, but in 2006 not many of my pages will be written in HTML 4.01.
IE is holding back the web-developers from moving forward to XHTML - not gonna happen with me. Do you think there'd be as many HTML 4.01 or as many broken XHTML (XHTML documents sent incorrectly as text/html) out there if IE supported these W3C recommendations?
--- End quote ---
Again off topic but end users don't care. Sorry to say this but I would code pages so all the major browsers could access the page. Otherwise you are shutting out 85% or our audience which is a bad idea.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Your webpage sucks. Why would a list of misconceptions and too-simple of "realities" to put things into perspective be of any use to anyone?
--- End quote ---
Yeah right except the hundreds of thousands of visitors who appreciate it. There is no "too-simple realities". There are facts and sources. Just no excuses.
Mastertech:
Yes of course Opera is not fully standards compliant. That changes nothing in regards to Firefox not being fully standards compliant either. What is this sort of Defense? Oh it is ok I robbed the bank because someone else did? Interesting logic or really a diversion? How come Firefox promoters must always redirect things instead of dealing with the truth?
--- Quote from: toadlife ---You are not getting what I am saying. You knew that this site is anti-microsoft, and by that nature most likely pro firefox, yet you came here and started to argue with everyone. Unless you're a total dimwit, you knew what response you would get. By definition you are trolling. It doesn't matter if the things you are saying are correct or not, nor does it matter if the people here's gripes about your site are correct or not.
--- End quote ---
I am well aware of this site. I still came here to clarify the points I initially made. If you reread what I originally posted you can see I was correcting misconceptions. If it makes you feel better I could lie and say I agree with everything everyone has posted? If only one point of mine gets clarified because of all this then it was worth it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version