[linux-elitists] Yet another mozilla atrocity

Joakim Ziegler joakim@avmaria.com
Sun Sep 28 22:07:55 PDT 2003

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 18:56, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> One can sum up the attitude like so: "The browser should work out of
> the box for the dumbest of users. Anything that the elitist community
> doesn't like should be labeled a feature. Preference items are a bad
> thing because they make the program more complicated to use and slow
> down the preferences dialog."

Too many preference items are a very bad thing, both for the reasons
cited above, and because they tend to be an excuse for not doing user
testing and thinking, and figuring you what a sensible way to do things
is. So instead, it's made configurable, and it's up to the user. Free
software has been particularly bad at this for a long time, but it's
gotten a lot better with things like GNOME2. Not to say Windows doesn't
suffer from it; whenever you see a preferences dialog with multiple rows
of notebook tabs, you know something is just wrong.

> The de-facto example was
> favicon.ico support. It was enabled by default because "everybody
> wants it, right?" IIRC for a long time it wasn't even possible to
> disable it through the configuration file. It might be possible now,
> but I'm not sure offhand because I don't use Phoenix/Firebird. Of
> course, there still isn't an item in the preferences about it. And
> 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.

If you view that as a valid reason to not use a specific browser,
regardless of its other merits, then I humbly submit that you're a nut.

> FWIW, Konqueror elicits many of the same objections from me. They used
> to have favicon.ico implemented as an optional feature, but decided
> that the option was "too confusing" and removed it from the
> preferences dialog. It was possible to disable favicon spamming
> through a configuration file, but I was disgusted that they thought
> this option was a second class citizen. I also dislike Konqueror
> because it tries to combine web browsing and file management into one
> application - a flawed metaphor and UI obviously stolen from
> you-know-who. IE features leave a bad taste in my mouth and I'd rather
> use a browser whose designers had some originality (basically having
> the original idea of not copying shit from IE).

I thought the whole "let's not do anything the way MS does it" meme went
out of fashion a few years ago. It seems I was wrong.

   The Private Joakim Ziegler - Not Speaking For Anyone But Myself
    joakim@avmaria.com - http://www.avmaria.com - rdgzt@Undernet
            http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.fix.no/

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list