Re: Microsoft bootlicker sues Netscape

[Linux Idiot <esoteric@atlnet.com>]

Sujal Shah wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Linux Idiot wrote:
> 
> > The fact the the programmer used a string or variable called inferior is
> > a reflection of the programmers belief, or sense of humor.  Either way,
> > there's more to it then just identifying browsers.  We do it as well,
> > but we don't label IE "piece_of_os_crashing_shit" although that does
> > reflect my personal opinion.
> 
> But that doesn't equate it to racist distribution of content.  Here is a
> situation in which there is an objective evaluation of features, not a
> subjective issue, and not an issue of institutionalized hate.

I personally did not see the racial issue that you saw.  Whatever, I
read it differently.

> 
> It IS a representation of the owners opinions, but MANY other sites use
> scripts LIKE the one presented for beneficial purposes.  For example, you
> woulnd't expect a blind person to be able to handle a normal Times
> newspaper, would you?  You would adapt to their abilities.

No, I wouldn't, but the point is that the particular term used indicates
some prejudice towards a segment of the browsers identified.  Certainly,
a value of 'netscapev3' or 'ie4' would not indicate the possibility of
prejudice as well as being more descriptive of the purpose of the
variable.

> 
> > Sure it is, go check out the gaming zone.  It's MS sight that will tell
> > you up fron that they don't support non MS OS or non MS browsers.
> > Equality my ass.
> 
> Yes, because they don't want to.  And that's equivalent to racism ("we
> don't serve you even though you are an equal).  That would be the
> equivalent of institutionalized racism.  And you should rail against MSFT
> for doing that.

Hey, I rail on MS every chance I get.

> 
> The script (and those like it) don't inherently have a purpose, just their
> implementation of it.  My point was that just because people put scripts
> lieke that into their pages doesn't mean that they are evil people with
> some sort of agenda.  I use scripts like that to make sure my content
> looks its best on everyone's browser.  I use Lynx, Opera, HotJava, and
> several other "alternative" browsers in addition to Netscape and I like
> having content look the same or at least as close to the same as possible.

I don't believe the issue is identifying a particular browser as much as
how it was identified.

> 
> > > > Another thing: As I understand it, a script like that is a set of
> > > > instructions to the browser. It is executed on the user's machine,
> > > > taking control from the consumer and giving it to the supplier.
> > > >
> [SNIP]
> > You are totally wrong here.  This script segment is designed to identify
> > the browser, therefore it must run on the client side.  It has nothing
> > to do with processing power available.
> 
> You're ABSOLUTELY wrong.  There is nothing that requires the script to be
> run on the client side for that purpose.  If you wanted to screen your
> site, for example if you were Microsoft, you could have your ASP
> technology take care of that on the server.

Okay, I should have explained it better.  The segment of code used is
not server code, therefore it would not work on the server side.  I'm
fully aware that you can determine the browser type and version via the
information passed to the server.  I was reflecting upon the specific
code used.

> 
> Even a CGI program could take care of that since every connection by most
> browsers reports what type of browser is making the connection.  I have
> several older PERL scripts, and C/C++ CGI's which all take advantage fof
> that feature.

Agreed, I've done the same.

> 
> There is NOTHING that requires it to be on the client side to make that
> determination.  The reason they use JavaScript is so that they can ease
> the load on their server (imagine spawning a process in addition to each
> connection just to check the browser type).  There's just no need for that
> overhead.

The particular code segment is client side code, that was my point.  I
agree it's better done on the client side.

> 
> JavaScript in and of itself isn't there to take control "away from the
> consumer" but instead is there to speed up the browsing experience for
> EVERYONE (supplier and consumer alike).

Again, the issue is how the browser's were identified, in a way that you
assume there is some prejudice involved.  As far as I'm concerned, I
would be relatively upset with anyone on my team that used that type of
approach, knowing that the person visiting the site could be offended. 
MS doesn't care.

> 
> > You need to be a bit more accurate when calling someone else paranoid.
> > Some of your facts are just plain wrong.
> 
> Which facts are incorrect?  I've answered everything in your post. :)

I misunderstood your references to the code.  I believe we agree that
the client is certainly the place to identify browsers.  I apologize for
my misunderstanding.

> 
> Sujal
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Opera, Netscape, and competition forever.
> > >
> > > Sujal
> > >
> > > > Lynx forever.
> > > >
> > > > Daniel N. Strychalski                      dski@cameonet.cameo.com.tw
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@jhu.edu
> > >
> > >    http://dan.hcf.jhu.edu/sujal/
> > >
> > > PGP Public Key: finger sujal@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
> > >                             or
> > >                 http://dan.hcf.jhu.edu/sujal/
> >
> > --
> > Until later: Geoffrey         esoteric@atlnet.com
> >
> > NT is secure.... as long as you don't remove the shrink wrap.
> > Want to speed up your NT box real cheap?  Replace NT with Linux...
> >
> 
> ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@jhu.edu
> 
>    http://dan.hcf.jhu.edu/sujal/
> 
> PGP Public Key: finger sujal@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>                             or
>                 http://dan.hcf.jhu.edu/sujal/

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@atlnet.com

NT is secure.... as long as you don't remove the shrink wrap.
Want to speed up your NT box real cheap?  Replace NT with Linux...