In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kier
<vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:56:49 +0100
<pan.2006.09.14.18.56.48.12934@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:58:19 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:47:25 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-14, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Linux nutsacks love to pick on Internet Explorer for all kinds of reasons,
>>>
>>> ...like insecurity and failure to support standards. That's right.
>>>
>>>> So why are they squealing with joy when they can now run Internet Explorer
>>>> under Linux (actually under Whino and Linux) ?
>>>
>>> For the same reason people were impressed at ttyQuake. Both are about
>>> equally useful, but they *are* nice demonstrations of how flexible Linux
>>> is.
>>
>> It goes well beyond that though.
>> Most of it revolves around sour grapes.
>> The Linux community loves to slam anything Windows but when they figure
>> out how to even half run it, no matter how aborted, they all of a sudden
>> drag it out as if they hit the Mega Millions jackpot in Lotto.
>>
>>
>> Remember, the Windows users can use Firefox and Opera as well, but we have
>> always been able to use IE for sites that do not work well with the other
>> browsers.
>>
>> Now the Linux community apparently can do the same and the hypocrisy rears
>> it's ugly head.
>
> Couldn't give a shit if IE works for Linux, ever, as I won't be using it.
> And I haven't noticed many people here say otherwise. You're full of shit.
>
Maybe you don't. I do. :-) Mostly because of our internal bugtracking
system which can't handle Mozilla cookies for some bizarre reason
known only to the implementors thereof.
Stupid.
The good news: IES4Linux works reasonably well. Cut and paste,
however, is problematic.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
