>Who cares? I'm interested in creating and reading interesting web pages; I
>don't really care how they got that way, except to know "can I do that,
>too?". I don't want to read hundreds/thousands of pages with _grey_
>backgrounds.
>I like Netscape because of the flexibility of non-standard html. And,
>perhaps it will become the standard. Those of you who are whinging about
>"Netscape this and that" aren't offering up any really valid complaints.
>Don't like it that "this page looks best in Netscape 1.1N"? fine! how
>you're seeing it would be how it would look in Mosaic, anyway, so why
>complain? Remember... anything's better than Lynx.
How you are seeing it will not be the same. Many of the extensions that
are being introduced by Netscape, Microsoft and the rest are PROPRIETARY
extensions. Such as the new FONT tags I've heard tell on the MSN browser
that call for specific fonts, specifically fonts that Microsoft itself
creates and sells. The game right now is to make your browser capture the
biggest market share and then start charging. Netscape has done the best
job for it, especially with so many people (Including myself I might add)
giving them free add space on their web pages.
Right now I can call up my favorite (free) text editor and write myself up
a page that everyone can view. Adding graphics gets a bit more tricky
since the better editors (i.e. photoshop) cost money, but lets say I make
them all with the free software available to me. Lots of POV rendered
objects and the like. I can still get by because it's all free and open.
Well ok gif are no longer free and open, but the web community is comming
up with a relacement standard.
Acrobat, Macromedia, and other type files are proprietary standards that
you need proprietary software to author in that can run hundreds or
thousands of dollars. Yes I would love to create rich multi-media for the
web, but I want options to do it. Right now your typical multimedia guru
is some young kid with a harddrive full of stolen software. We should have
the ability to publish in this medium without having to pay for the tools
necessary to do minimal work. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use for
pay tools (Photoshop is far superior to any free graphics paint tool I've
seen so far, emacs on the other hand...) but you can get by without it.
Think back to those crazy anchient days of one year ago when much of web
graphics were done with xpaint. They weren't the best, but you technically
could do it.
Adobe Acrobat? Macromedia Director? You NEED to buy their software to
author in it. No way around it. And if you are going to try to make a
living by publishing stealing a copy from kinko's just aint going to cut
it.
Also there is the issue of not having the source for the tools. Netscape
for SGI has a bug (ok it has LOTS) that causes a memory leak that causes
your whole system to get hosed if you leave it running all day. It would
probably take a day or two to get fixed, but since it's closed... you can
all just wait until we fix it.
We know best.
We'll show you how to publish.
Don't worry about it.
>Afraid to download software from the net? your problem. ... deal with it by
>using any number of anti-virus programs.
I have never been afraid of any of that. Virus' don't get too far on a
UNIX system.
>So... Netscape: yes. HotJava: cool! MPEG and JPEG? great...images!
>animation! video! Acrobat? whee! PageMill: Ooo! just you wait! and on and
>on...
>whatever makes your web pages more interesting! So be brave, get that modem
>warmed up and start downloading. Get your checkbook out for those shareware
>fees... and Have Fun.
How about lets support a free and open system so we can all publish and
subscribe to the media around us. ANd if we go out and pay for tools to
view or create, it's before we want to, not because we have to.
. . . . .. . . ... .._..._...__..___._.___.______________taylor@taylor.org