Monday December 28th, 1998
Ben Gertzfield writes in with a link to some intriguing misinformation.
"In the December 1998 issue of Network Magazine," writes Ben, "there is an article entitled 'Skirmishes in the Browser Wars' available online here (free registration required) that seems to be severely misinformed.
A few relevant quotes:
'Microsoft's Internet Explorer 5 (IE5) is a bit farther along than Netscape's Communicator 5...(Note that I'm using the present tense for IE5 because you can run the alpha now, and the future tense for Mozilla 5 because there's nothing yet for a user to download and run.)'
and 'Netscape Communication's Communicator 5...should be able to decompress graphics faster than previous versions by exploiting Intel's Pentium MMX extensions.'
Yikes -- this is the first I've heard of both of these. Alan Zeichick is the author of this article; perhaps we should contact him and let him know all about mozillaZine and fetchBuilds :)"
I don't know about the first quote, but the second one proably came from the information on Netscape DevEdge site at <http://developer1.netscap….com:80/source/intel.html> It says that the original communicator source code release, contained code for an MMX optimized JPEG decoder.
#2 Re:Browser FUD
by Joel Caris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tuesday December 29th, 1998 12:35 AM
The biggest problem with this article seems to be that it is months old. The article may be in the December issue, but it was obviously written in late September or early October. That's when the information is from (i.e. Novell choosing IE, 4.5 PR2).
Maybe they needed to use up some space so they decided to throw in that article that they never got around to publishing in the October issue.
#3 Re:Browser FUD
by John Gesang, a.k.a. Mr.Palomar <email@example.com>
Tuesday December 29th, 1998 10:38 PM
"Dribbleware"? (As opposed to "Vaporware"?) Oh I can see what he's implying, alright. But then, NT 5 surely qualifies as "dribbleware." With all his talk about business enterprise document "standards" this guy is obviously a FUD evangalist. Interesting, isn't it, how he tries to de-emphasize his obviously pro-Microsoft stance by never mentioning the Evil Empire directly when he talks about these highly dubious "standards" (which were "established only to simplify the purchasing process and to streamline tech support" and had nothing to do with ignorance, laziness, and software marketing hype . . . and consequently doubled the need for tech-support to provide protection from viri and recover lost data!). "Standards" which, incidentally, are being questioned and even abandoned by business executives with some degree of intelligence and foresight . . . . I don't think he's ignorant of anything at all, though I wouldn't guess what motivates him to spew such horseshit. It's sickening to find this kind of thing on the 'net, though it really is all-too-common; especially when it masquerades as thoughtful journalistic commentary.
#4 Re:Browser FUD
by jdwayside <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wednesday December 30th, 1998 8:16 AM