It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| SFN Feb 24, 2005 4:51 AM EDT |
If only Molly were the only pinhead getting this sort of stuff published. Check this one out: http://www.securitypipeline.com/60401708 Suddenly there's a number of journalists independently jumping on the "Firefox Sucks" bandwagon? I'm not buying that. This is a concerted effort. |
| PaulFerris Feb 24, 2005 5:16 AM EDT |
SFN: Yes, this is interesting. I'm sure, no wait, positive that no large PR firms are behind it. You know, like Waggon-Wheel-Egg-Storm -- Microsoft's PR firm. They would never do something like this. *cough* Never. |
| pat Feb 24, 2005 10:34 AM EDT |
Enderle. Hahaha, what a jerk. I guess even jerks have to get paid. |
| devnet Feb 24, 2005 10:49 AM EDT |
This guy is comical... http://www.securitypipeline.com/60401708 He states, "Firefox is in version 1.0. Typically, if any of us suggested someone deploy a 1.0 product, even if it came from IBM or Microsoft (or particularly if it came from Microsoft), they would rightfully laugh us out of the room. 1.0 products are largely unknown when it comes to defects; most professionals won't use beta products, and most of us know that a 1.0 release typically has a lot of problems. It's generally better to wait until version 1.1 before deploying software, to insure that the early adopters--and not you--feel the pain of using a product before it is fully tested.. " So, if the developers from firefox would have deployed a different naming scheme, then everything would be just fine eh? They should have done firefox v2.1 and things would have been on the up and up? What a croc. Don't worry about the 25 million "beta testers" that are out there simultaneously making a better product each and every day. This guy's journalism is version .20 and hasn't even been beta tested yet. He shoulda spent more time in the planning phase before deploying his mouth. |
| SFN Feb 24, 2005 11:22 AM EDT |
Um..... http://www.scmagazine.com/features/index.cfm?fuseaction=feat... "Replacing Internet Explorer causes incompatibilities," said Jay Heiser, director of research, infosecurity and risk at Gartner. "It would require a lot of web development to ensure that applications worked on two different browsers." I always thought that it was simply a matter of designing pages to meet W3C standards and from that point it was up to browser manufacturers to make sure that their products also met those standards. Time to start a new lxer DB. First three entries: Molly Wood Rob Enderle Jay Heiser |
| devnet Feb 24, 2005 11:32 AM EDT |
I second that call! |
| phubert Feb 25, 2005 10:16 AM EDT |
So, we learn MS still resorts to FUD through all its quislings... remember the earlier, abandoned, FUD wars? Oh well, dust off an old tool and try it all over again... You know you're hurting them when... But, then they pull out the $$$ and every other stop they can muster to 'compete' based on their priceless 'value added'. Handcuffs? OH, the HANDcuffs! They're there to PROTECT you from nasty, dangerous, open source software!! Microsoft, we care! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!