[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IE is dead



On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Peter L. Peres wrote:

>The best non-english software has always originated in non-english
>speaking countries ;) Do not expect too much from either competitor. They
>are too busy fighting each other to pay attention to small details, and
>small countries. Such as Israel for example. Non-english software gets
Well, competition didn't prevent M$ from having some 
internationalisation support in MSIE (far from perfect, but still at least
something). Netscape, even in 4.0, has almost none, and which it has - is
deadly broken. One that want netscape to operate his native language (I do
not speak for localised interface - it's too much to expect and I won't
use it anyway, though many would) - has to apply various dirty hacks.
Also, to take Russia - which is not so small country - Russian support in
Netscape is not much better than Hebrew... It exists, unlike Hebrew
support, but is both unsufficient and broken. Do not know what about all
others international ones that are inside Netscape - but seems they aren't
better...
>really good when the author immigrates to the US and stops being paid with
>little pieces of colored paper (many of which their issuers want back
>badly, everywhere), and starts being paid *money* for his work. 
Example? 

>Never. The poor guys probably had one hell of a time porting it from UNIX
>to L95 in the first place. I believe that they have learned a few lessons
>and won't make any more mistakes. Noone does development at a non-portable
Do not think so. UNIX and Windows Communicators are quite
different, IIRC, though similiar on look. Also, some capabilities of
Windows version are stripped from UNIX one (one example: UNIX versions has
far less charsets in font selection box... there are many tiny examples). 
You are thinking too good on them. Try reading Dilbert ;).
>level anymore. There is a very high level description of the GUI and
You bet almost everyone does. I may even name the One Platform they
develop for. You may name it too, I suppose ;) ;((
>modules in relatively portable libraries. There are 3rd party tools that
Been there, worked with that. Not bad, but still - you have to be strictly
in the borders of that tool designer's mind - you cannot add some "native"
tricks... And this is the temptation hard to avoid - and almost impossible
competing with strictly-one-platform rival like Microsoft, which would
certainly use every last bit of Windows API to pick you.
>assemble the contraption for various platforms. If any, the Linux port is
>probably the hardest to maintain because there are no automatic commercial
>tools for that under Linux. (no, I do not mean KDE or RCS, or makefiles).
So, what exactly do you mean?
Also, if they had such a scheme - why UNIX (and Linux, particullary)
releases are so delayed? If they had true multiplatform development, at
least betas release should be almost simultaneous... And certainly no
delayed in months' terms.
--
frodo@sharat.co.il	\/  There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev	/\  Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-2-5369213	/\  		JRRT LoTR.
http://www.sharat.co.il/frodo/   whois:SM719-RIPE@whois.ripe.net