Comments on: U.S. Copyright Office poll: IE-only OK?

As it prepares a new Web site for prospective copyright holders, the agency wants to know what people think of being restricted to IE.

[catchall]

Quit whining. Welcome to the real world

And that means not getting everything you want. Any of the folks on the ?Open Standards? soapbox done a large scale software implementation? You never get it all. Certainly not all at once. If the best solution at the best price means you can cover 90% of your clients now, with an upgrade within sight that will bring in an additional 5+%, that sounds pretty good. Should it cover everyone? Yes, in a perfect world. Should they continue to work to make it compatible with everyone? Yes, in a perfect world.

Sorry folks, sometimes the fastest/cheapest/most flexible solutions are NOT open standards. Too bad, get overt it.

[m.meister]

No Excuses

There is no excuse for requiring IE-only. If testing is an issue,
they should be targeting FireFox and not IE, as it supports ALL
the various major platforms. It is a sign of poor web
development skills to not be able to target anything but IE.

I shouldn't be forced to purchase a Windows machine to use
services of a government that is supposed to service me. Those
are my tax dollars being used to promote a single-vendor
solution.

If you want cheaper options, FireFox would have insured support
for all major platforms without full-blown testing on each
platform. The cost over IE-only is minimal and the results are
accessibility by EVERYONE.

[smarty_pantz]

That reply is so great I want to cry!

I totally agree with you. I couln't have put it better myself. I don't think these open source whiners know the meaning of 'budget' or 'ROI'.

The funny part is that if it was THEIR money, they'd be doing the same darn thing! (after, of course, losing their shirts a few times doing it the other way).

[Earl Benser]

I'm not an overt supporter...

... of browser standards, but I've been around long enough to
know that anything which affects so many people as an Internet
browser needds standards for it's control, and those standards
cannot be left in the hands of anyone who financial future is
dependent upon the application of those standards.

Microsoft may have captured the majority of the browser market,
legally or illegally, it makes no difference now. But now, simply
because of that, MS is the worst possible 'holder' or definer of
browser standards - If MS does achieve that position, it's a
guaranteed fact that MS will warp the standards to eliminate the
competition. MS has already done that to Netscape and MS brags
about it. Any bureaucratic nonsense like requiring IE only just
plays into MS open hands and wallet.

If there is anyone at the U.S. Copyright Office who still has any
intelligence left, they should see that it is obvious that there
proposed Web service should launch with ANY browser meeting
W3C standards. From that point on, it's the browser's problem.

Any other course of action clearly established the core stupidity
of CO managers, the incompetence of Siebel, and of other
programmers used by the CO, and perhaps various less well
publicized leverages.

It may not make much difference to me. I have no intentions of
any significant amount of web operations with the CO, or with
Siebel. I have already eliminated IE (and OE and ActtiveX) from
my PC's and Mac's. And if a web site won't work with FireFox,
Opera, andor Safari, I don't go back to that web site again.

But I do find it less than amusing that an official Government
facility would even consider locking their public access into a
form provided by one very-much-for-profit corporation.

[Darryl Snortberry]

Quit Whining

Yeah people, quit thinking the government you fund and pay for should work for you. Greedy selfish non working lazy good for nothings.

[catchall]

Quit whining. Welcome to the real world

And that means not getting everything you want. Any of the folks on the ?Open Standards? soapbox done a large scale software implementation? You never get it all. Certainly not all at once. If the best solution at the best price means you can cover 90% of your clients now, with an upgrade within sight that will bring in an additional 5+%, that sounds pretty good. Should it cover everyone? Yes, in a perfect world. Should they continue to work to make it compatible with everyone? Yes, in a perfect world.

Sorry folks, sometimes the fastest/cheapest/most flexible solutions are NOT open standards. Too bad, get overt it.

[m.meister]

No Excuses

There is no excuse for requiring IE-only. If testing is an issue,
they should be targeting FireFox and not IE, as it supports ALL
the various major platforms. It is a sign of poor web
development skills to not be able to target anything but IE.

I shouldn't be forced to purchase a Windows machine to use
services of a government that is supposed to service me. Those
are my tax dollars being used to promote a single-vendor
solution.

If you want cheaper options, FireFox would have insured support
for all major platforms without full-blown testing on each
platform. The cost over IE-only is minimal and the results are
accessibility by EVERYONE.

[smarty_pantz]

That reply is so great I want to cry!

I totally agree with you. I couln't have put it better myself. I don't think these open source whiners know the meaning of 'budget' or 'ROI'.

The funny part is that if it was THEIR money, they'd be doing the same darn thing! (after, of course, losing their shirts a few times doing it the other way).

[Earl Benser]

I'm not an overt supporter...

... of browser standards, but I've been around long enough to
know that anything which affects so many people as an Internet
browser needds standards for it's control, and those standards
cannot be left in the hands of anyone who financial future is
dependent upon the application of those standards.

Microsoft may have captured the majority of the browser market,
legally or illegally, it makes no difference now. But now, simply
because of that, MS is the worst possible 'holder' or definer of
browser standards - If MS does achieve that position, it's a
guaranteed fact that MS will warp the standards to eliminate the
competition. MS has already done that to Netscape and MS brags
about it. Any bureaucratic nonsense like requiring IE only just
plays into MS open hands and wallet.

If there is anyone at the U.S. Copyright Office who still has any
intelligence left, they should see that it is obvious that there
proposed Web service should launch with ANY browser meeting
W3C standards. From that point on, it's the browser's problem.

Any other course of action clearly established the core stupidity
of CO managers, the incompetence of Siebel, and of other
programmers used by the CO, and perhaps various less well
publicized leverages.

It may not make much difference to me. I have no intentions of
any significant amount of web operations with the CO, or with
Siebel. I have already eliminated IE (and OE and ActtiveX) from
my PC's and Mac's. And if a web site won't work with FireFox,
Opera, andor Safari, I don't go back to that web site again.

But I do find it less than amusing that an official Government
facility would even consider locking their public access into a
form provided by one very-much-for-profit corporation.

[Darryl Snortberry]

Quit Whining

Yeah people, quit thinking the government you fund and pay for should work for you. Greedy selfish non working lazy good for nothings.

[Eggs Ackley]

If you have to ask ...

... you already know the answer. Think of it this way: is there another browser that employs technology that would exclude all *OTHER* browsers?

What they should have done was create a Catch-22 situation where the only way to submit comments is through IE.

[Eggs Ackley]

If you have to ask ...

... you already know the answer. Think of it this way: is there another browser that employs technology that would exclude all *OTHER* browsers?

What they should have done was create a Catch-22 situation where the only way to submit comments is through IE.

Support W3C standards

I think all should adhere to W3C standards and there is simply no excuse to cater to the proprietary extensions of any particuler browser be it IE or Mozilla or Firefox or whatever!! At the end of the day you will want accessbility to all and not discriminate anyone. As such it is the moral obligation of govt agencies, like the U.S. Copyright Office to insist and adhere to open standards and not the specifications of any particular party.

Support W3C standards

I think all should adhere to W3C standards and there is simply no excuse to cater to the proprietary extensions of any particuler browser be it IE or Mozilla or Firefox or whatever!! At the end of the day you will want accessbility to all and not discriminate anyone. As such it is the moral obligation of govt agencies, like the U.S. Copyright Office to insist and adhere to open standards and not the specifications of any particular party.

[technewsjunkie]

Government requirement of proprietary software?!

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[technewsjunkie]

Government requirement of proprietary software?!

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[keosky]

Strictly Security means can't bestriclty IE

Based on just the MS announcements from the last few days of the HUGE IE security hole, why would a place where sensitive documents need to get passed even entertain such a policy???

The office is receiving numerous calls already but "all the lawyers are on vacation" ... so click the link and write a quick note and send via snail mail. It will have impact.

[keosky]

Strictly Security means can't bestriclty IE

Based on just the MS announcements from the last few days of the HUGE IE security hole, why would a place where sensitive documents need to get passed even entertain such a policy???

The office is receiving numerous calls already but "all the lawyers are on vacation" ... so click the link and write a quick note and send via snail mail. It will have impact.

[keosky]

Strictly Security means can't be strictly IE

Based on just the MS announcements from the last few days of the HUGE IE security hole, why would a place where sensitive documents need to get passed even entertain such a policy???

The office is receiving numerous calls already but "all the lawyers are on vacation" ... so click the link and write a quick note and send via snail mail. It will have impact.

[George Cole]

MS announcements

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_ion_owners_manual.htm

[keosky]

Strictly Security means can't be strictly IE

Based on just the MS announcements from the last few days of the HUGE IE security hole, why would a place where sensitive documents need to get passed even entertain such a policy???

The office is receiving numerous calls already but "all the lawyers are on vacation" ... so click the link and write a quick note and send via snail mail. It will have impact.

[George Cole]

MS announcements

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_ion_owners_manual.htm

And us Linux/BSD and OSX users..

are supposed to do exactly what if we need to interact with them? Pay the Microsoft tax? Run IE on Wine? Come on, folks, standards compliance isn't really that tough. Can anyone in the government (DOJ) spell M-o-n-o-p-o-l-y?

And us Linux/BSD and OSX users..

are supposed to do exactly what if we need to interact with them? Pay the Microsoft tax? Run IE on Wine? Come on, folks, standards compliance isn't really that tough. Can anyone in the government (DOJ) spell M-o-n-o-p-o-l-y?

[technewsjunkie]

Demand Open standards based browsers...

Don't blame end users! Talk about stifling competition with
Government complicity!

[William Squire]

didn't you read

The application will be cross-browser compatible shortly. Didn't you read the article??

If they support IE, then 15% of the population may need to find another browser. If they adhere to W3C recommendations and ignore IE, then 85% of the population needs to find another browser. Huge difference in effort and cost to the public.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8

[technewsjunkie]

Demand Open standards based browsers...

Don't blame end users! Talk about stifling competition with
Government complicity!

[William Squire]

didn't you read

The application will be cross-browser compatible shortly. Didn't you read the article??

If they support IE, then 15% of the population may need to find another browser. If they adhere to W3C recommendations and ignore IE, then 85% of the population needs to find another browser. Huge difference in effort and cost to the public.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=84e78f4e-60e6-4e9f-9233-9457dbe196b8

[Heebee Jeebies]

Typical....

Just like our government instead of supporting standards to help force companies like Microsoft to conform to industry standards they choose to support c*ap instead.

Robert

[Heebee Jeebies]

Typical....

Just like our government instead of supporting standards to help force companies like Microsoft to conform to industry standards they choose to support c*ap instead.

Robert

[volterwd]

How long until

MS owns the US by way of controlling the government?

[volterwd]

How long until

MS owns the US by way of controlling the government?