[linux-elitists] Yet another mozilla atrocity

Ed Carp erc@smi.kicks-ass.net
Sun Sep 28 20:29:48 PDT 2003


On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> I've had many disputes with the mozilla team over the years. The
> foremost and most obvious one is over the use of XUL, which is a pile
> of shit. I've almost gotten over that, though, through daily

This highlights the attitude of the computer community, which is, "if it's
new, and cool-looking, everyone should use it for everything!"  This
attitude is
exemplified by the adoption of Java, Perl, PHP, and XML and friends as
some sort of idiotic "standard" that everyone sould use for everything
they do.  This is also commonly found in groups of arrogant programmers
who presume to make decisions for users that they have neither the
qualifications or the experience to make.  How many programmers out there
have taken a course in human usability factors, or even read any of the
excellent books on the subject?  Not very many, I'll wager.

This attitude is most commonly found among young computer geeks who have
lots of ideas, little common sense, and absolutely no idea what they are
talking about outside their own (very narrow) area of expertise.
Experience shows that most "new, cool" ideas don't stand the test of time
because they are either too rigid, too complex, or too narrow in their
focus, but starry-eyed geeks will continue to put forth these sorts of
ideas as if they're the best thing since sliced bread and arrogantly
attempt to jam them down everyone else's throats because that's all they
know.

> represented a disturbing trend in mozilla development. Instead of
> migrating to an interface that wasn't based on XML and javascript, the
> idea was to make the interface spartan to gain a speedup. A good

Stupid.  XML is designed to provide a common interchange format for data,
not to present data to a user.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

> example of this is the Preferences dialog, which lacked many important
> option. When I talked to developers about this, they stated that they
> didn't intend to add many of them. The de-facto example was

That's because programmers are an insurrably arrogant and egotistical lot
who presume to know just what the user wants.  Nope, sorry, wrong again,
guys.

> Firebird requests /favicon.ico from every site, not just ones with one
> listed in a meta tag. I just verified that it still does this. I view
> that behavior as despicable and a valid reason not to use a browser.

Again, another stupid idea.  Presumptuous to assume that's what the user
wants, and wasteful of bandwidth, besides.

> prefer not to use but activate by accident all the time. I don't know
> of a way to turn it off.

It's called "unistalling the application".

> This brings me to the latest problem. I was unable to access a service
> that was running on a nonstandard port. I got a useless message saying
> "this port has been blocked for security reasons". It turns out that
> this is considered a feature, for no reason that I can understand. It
> is described at
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/PortBanning.html. Judging by
> the port list, it looks like there is no real security reason to block
> those ports, merely some developers who thought "Hmm, no one would run
> a HTTP server on those ports. We'd better block them." I still don't
> see the logic, though. As usual, there are no useful preference items.

It's not the job of a browser to block ports!  Idiots.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list