Your Operating System

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Apart from the obvious anachronistic problems, the implication that software in of itself can somehow be inherently evil is rather ridiculous.

. . .

Also to people who seem to code websites intentionally to display badly in Internet Explorer.

As a web developer I can in fact say IE is evil. It is so broken standards-wise that you have to put a good deal of effort to re-work your page just to get it to work on IE (generally you have to write a version specifically for IE). This is in fact evil and there is no telling how my man hours have been lost to IE stupidity.

[BrianBlessed]

I can't see how making a hill steep, one that cars drive up rather than a hillish riverbank, would prevent flooding. If anything I would think it would make flooding worse by trapping water in steep valleys and generally distributing it in greater depths. Not that water really had anything to do with my analogy.

The forum avatars would be the perfect example, the argument being that if you should get firefox so you don't have to see 1200 x 800 avatars. Completely ignoring the fact that the filesize is still massive. That and there is no point having browsers automatically resize an image for you, as it actually looks worse than if you were to resize it in any image program despite being a higher resolution.

Also people who code weak derisive messages into their websites involving browsers, I can't even see the point, I mean what's in it for them? It's not as if the negative aspects of someone else's browser actually effects them. Maybe if Internet Explorer was a loaded shotgun that was prone to randomly blow other people's faces off. It's the equivalent of me walking round my neighbourhood and finding people who own lesser car brands and shouting wanker to their face for no particular reason. Then claiming their choice of car offends me on a moral level. Then possibly scrawling "I touch kids" on their car in black marker.

As a web developer I can in fact say IE is evil. It is so broken standards-wise that you have to put a good deal of effort to re-work your page just to get it to work on IE (generally you have to write a version specifically for IE). This is in fact evil and there is no telling how my man hours have been lost to IE stupidity.

That's not evil, that would be inefficiency/bad production/etc. I mean just because old Skodas had a reputation for being terrible, doesn't mean they are evil machina produced purely to create malevolent mischeif and generally make people's lives more unbearable. See, people confuse the word evil with poor in this instance.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

While I don't think IE bashing productive, if you spend days trying to get a webpage to display properly in IE you do get tempted to tell people to get a browser that is less broken standards-wise.

Things like image resizing are one thing, getting <div> tags to display correctly (right size and position), tables to scroll properly, tables to line up as they should, etc. are terribly annoying in IE.

I say evil because Microsoft has known for years about the problems with IE but has done nothing to fix them. Microsoft knows web developers have to code for IE because of it's market share, but they continue to ignore the massive headaches their non-standards compliance causes. Basically they are continuing in their actions despite the fact that a lot of people are seriously injured (lost hours of work and such) due to their actions. This is evil.

[blackhole12]

Stewsburntmonkey: That depends fully on the developer's perspective. From my perspective, it was a pain in the ass finding out that my webpage, although it rendered perfectly fine in IE and it was relatively easy to get it to do so, was completely and totally FUBAR in firefox, and ended up spending about 3 hours trying to get it to work in firefox. On one webpage i actually simply gave up trying to get it to display my div tags correctly. In firefox. Web browsers in general are the problem. None of them do things in a generally acceptable way. Before you even think about defending your holy object, i quote:

Firefox's lack of support for seemingly random things is far more annoying though, you've trundled through writing all this stuff, tested it in IE and Opera, and WHAM, FF point blank refuses to do anything.

Now your going to say you haven't had any problems with FF and it must be our fault... right?

Well, gee, that looks awfully similar to MY argument for using IE! Wow, could that be a coincidence? Hmmmm.... [/sarcasm]

[BrianBlessed]

While I don't think IE bashing productive, if you spend days trying to get a webpage to display properly in IE you do get tempted to tell people to get a browser that is less broken standards-wise.

Things like image resizing are one thing, getting <div> tags to display correctly (right size and position), tables to scroll properly, tables to line up as they should, etc. are terribly annoying in IE.

And i'm sure your efforts are not disimilar to operations carried out by the Allies during World War II. I remember Operation Market Garden now, all that div tagging and text parsing. Terrible, just terrible.

[The GoldFish]

I simply meant there are things that are supposed to work certain ways and IE tends to be the worst offender in not obeying them (FF isn't innocent either, although things tend to get fixed eventually in FF...). Imagine coding for a microprocessor and finding out that it didn't actually do the things it said in the data sheet and that you needed to faff about for hours/days trying to work out why it's doing what it actually is doing and not what you're telling it to. If it's the way it is supposed to be, and it isn't being done, someone has, more often than not, taken it upon themselves to break from that regulation when they shouldn't have, because they haven't then documented it or identified it as being a difference with what is on paper, or in the case where they didn't know about it, has failed to document and identify it on paper since being informed of it or seeing if it can be fixed.

And Yes completely ignoring the fact that IE is told to do something by code it's supposed to support and it *ignores* it, would probably ignore the point I was making - I'm not looking for a justification of why the command is there, that's not what either example was for.

I have nothing to say, however, about people who highhorse about the whole thing as you indicated in your last paragraph - yes IE should downsize the forum avatars because it's told to and it doesn't. Do I really care that much? Not really... - it ought to do it to make the job of web page developers easier, and because the people who made it were supposed to make it complient and they apparently didn't, and they don't care.

[blackhole12]

Jesus, i post something and 2 people post in reply to the post BEFORE me like 2 seconds after i'm done. TOO FAST!

[The GoldFish]

It's called a forum, that tends to happen.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

And i'm sure your efforts are not disimilar to operations carried out by the Allies during World War II. I remember Operation Market Garden now, all that div tagging and text parsing. Terrible, just terrible.

Evil comes in all shapes and sizes. Not everything that is evil has a horrible little mustache and speaks German.

[blackhole12]

Evil also comes in the form of pink, round balls with very large mouths

[The GoldFish]

And Hiccups.

I hate hiccups

And please be aware for future reference that 'working in the way you're used to' and 'working the way they're supposed to' are different things.

Also I use XP, but have ubuntu something or other on my spare computer. Which I hate. That's why I didn't say I multibooted. GNU/Linux fills me with rage. RAGE. That is all.

[BrianBlessed]

Even using the traditional and dubiously relative term of evil, it still relies on aspect of behaviour, choice and reasoning. Internet Explorer, being a piece of software and not a sentient being, lacks any ability to reason, choose or exhibit behavioural patterns. If you really wanted to make that ridiculous a definition, you could claim that the programmers negligence has such a devastating effect on other people that they should be vilified. Although even when you take into consideration the term evil being relative, that still sounds like something a complete cretin would say inbetween claiming asylum seekers caused the Falklands war and the gays are infectious.

[blackhole12]

GNU/Linux fills me with rage. RAGE. That is all.

Well now, by the laws of human nature, you've just invited all the linux fans to flame you to kingdom come.

[The GoldFish]

And you've just invited all the members of the GNU project to flame you by forgetting they exist when they're a huge part of the operating system commonly referred to as 'linux', which is only the kernal.

Besides I said it fills me with rage; I don't doubt it as a quality operating system, however!

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Even using the traditional and dubiously relative term of evil, it still relies on aspect of behaviour, choice and reasoning. Internet Explorer, being a piece of software and not a sentient being, lacks any ability to reason, choose or exhibit behavioural patterns. If you really wanted to make that ridiculous a definition, you could claim that the programmers negligence has such a devastating effect on other people that they should be vilified. Although even when you take into consideration the term evil being relative, that still sounds like something a complete cretin would say inbetween claiming asylum seekers caused the Falklands war and the gays are infectious.

The Nazi party was/is an imaginary object, that is it has no concrete manifestation, yet is commonly regarded as evil. Calling a non-living entity evil is quite common. In the case of IE the evil does stem from the developers actions, whether negligent or malevolent.

Since the definition of "evil" is being questioned, let's look at the dictionary:

e·vil (ē'vəl) Pronunciation Key
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

I'd say IE fits definitions 1, 2, 3 and 4. It certainly fits 2 and 4; 1 and 3 could be debated.