Re: misK

[Chris Williams <chrisw@miso.wwa.com>]

Douglas Alan writes:

>4. Although there is certainly merit in making information available
>   to everyone, Chris Williams's claim that a Web page which only
>   works with Netscape is worse that apartheid is without a doubt the
>   most upsurd and offensive statement I have seen in all my years on
>   the Internet (which is many more years than I wish to admit).  Some
>   African American person should go wap Chris upside his head.

    That would be some accomplishment if it were true.

>   First of all, not everyone is blessed with infinite amounts of
>   time.  Some people have to be content with doing what they can in
>   the amount of free time they have, and if that's not 100% perfect,
>   well then that's going to have to be good enough.  Hearing someone
>   screaming "Nazi!" for such a minor transgression makes my blood
>   curdle.

    Minor? Please, don't just scream...show me the difference. 

    How exactly is "you can't come into this store because you are black"
different from "you can't read this page because you don't have expansive
computer equipment"? 

   Take away all the emotional elements - that the first inspires deep
repugnance and the second doesn't seem to bother most people. Remove all
that from the equation. Compare tham as two instances of bigotry; racial
versus technical. 

   How does the web writer who decides that some people are not worthy
of reading his/her web page differ from George Wallace standing on the
steps of the university? Again, disregard the emotional connection just 
for the moment for the sake of trying to understand.

   In the case of a Kate Bush web page, one would hope that the information
would be available to everyone interested. One would hope that some moral
obligation would be felt to the people who produced much of the original
information presented. 

   But the two biggest Kate Bush fans *cannot* see this page. Peter 
Fitzgerald-Morris has a 286 with a 9600-baud modem. Andy Marvick is on AOL. 
What do these two major Kate fans see when they look at Mr. Siedhoff's page?

  ========================================================================
Kate Bush Page of Burkhard Siedhoff

Kate Bush Page - content: Kate Bush Gallery, Kate Bush CDs, Kate Bush
collection, Offered and wanted, Factsheet, The Kick Inside, Lionheart, Never
For Ever, The Dreaming, Hounds of Love, The Whole Story, The Sensual World,
This Woman's Work, The Red Shoes

These pages are only visible with frames browsers!

Use Netscape 2.0 or higher, Microsoft Explorer 3.0 or Oracle Power Browser 1.0

  ========================================================================

   Do you know what the first English Language page to pop up in AltaVista
when you search the phrase "Kate Bush"? Why, Mr. Burhard Siedhoff's! Try
it and see. If any AOL user visits AltaVista and searches for info on 
"Kate Bush", *that* is the sort of welcome they get.

   

>   Scondly, if you haven't noticed there is a war occuring on the
>   Internet, and whether you like it or not, there is going to be only
>   one winner: The choice is between Microsoft and Netscape.
>   Microsoft is probably going to win this battle; in which case we
>   will all lose.  On the other hand, there is still hope for
>   Netscape.  Netscape may also be a dictator, but perhaps it will be
>   a more benevolant dictator than the evil Microsoft.  

   I'm using Microsoft IE 3.0 right now because it's a better browser.
And it's smaller...not weighted down with a newsreader and mail program
that I don't want. If anyone is in an economic position to compete with
MS it is Netscape.

   You must have not been paying attention. Microsoft has been gaining
ground by adhereing to standards. They have the first widely distributed
browser to support Cascading Style Sheets...giving more power and 
flexibility

>   The best way
>   to hurt Microsoft is to make every Web page you can only compatible
>   with Netscape.  What is of issue is whether this tactic is worth
>   all the 286-owning pawns that will be sacrificed along the way.
>   The issue is not so black and white.

   Suggesting that compatibility of information be sacrificied just to
spite Bill is insane. A "scorched earth" approach to the www.

>   Thirdly, much of what is wrong with the world can be traced to
>   "backward compatibility".  Sure C++ is backward compatible with C,
>   but look at the cost: A monstrosity of a language that is less
>   powerful than laguages that are a hundred times simpler.  And even
>   so it wasn't able to maintain 100% compatibility.  And of course,
>   programs that use C++ features won't compile under a C compiler.
>   And there aren't any C++ compilers for 286's.  Are modern
>   programming languages also worse than apartheid?

   Poor analogy. Compiled code, in C or C++ or whatever still runs
on the same machine. But if you were writing a utility and distributing
the source, you would probably tend to write it in the most portable
C possible. 

   -----
 
   Obviously I don't mean to belittle anyone's suffering. I'm just trying
to get to get people to understand the immensity of this problem. I'm also
trying to get people to acknowledge their own biases. "Hey, Netscape is
free!" (It actually isn't for most people.) This ignores the price of the
equipment needed to view a FYL ("Fuck You Lynx-users") page. Unless you
have fairly recent equipment you are SOL. 

   The water fountian analogy is valid. Prove me wrong.