Re: Bero goes bye bye

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 22:29, John wrote:
> On Friday 27 September 2002 22:15, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> > So if its a broken website....and you know its a broken website...is it
> > a good idea for a browser(any browser) to render it?  Where is the
> > i
> 
> I don't frigging care. The point is that there's a feature I want to use, and 
> while I can probably hack round the problem in K, M and G don't have an 
> obvious way round the problem.

I take bitching and moaning about lack of features in one product or
another as caring (to some extent).  If you didn't frigging care, it's
probably best if you not waste your valuable time here complaining about
things.     

> 
> Even with the best will in the world, the webmaster has to
> a) Reproduce the problem
> b) Work out a fix
> c) Test the fix
> Then it has to go through QA for testing
> Then it probably has to go through integration testing to ensure nothing else 
> breaks.
> Then it has to fit the bank's release cycle.

So we should just live with crappy software becuase the people who
produce it can't take the time to get it right?  Why are you using Linux
again?  From this post its clear it certaintly isn't becuase of the
philosophy...you've already stated you don't care about the issue of
website adhereing to open standards.  And you don't seem to friggin care
so much about the quality of the software you use, in this case you
bank's website.  Instead of encouraging the developers to actually get
it right you'd rather have a quick fix and be done with it.  You want
feature X and feature Y "right now!"...and appearently you want it on
the cheap.  Yuu want a quick fix...and you don't seem to be too
interested in fixing the problem.  By constantly having your browser set
to mimic IE..you are helping to make the problem worse by giving IE a
larger stat in browser traffic...and what's worse you are greatly
diminishing konq's stats in browser traffic...

-jef