Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Options

Why do i even bother

edited January 2006 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
So yesterday i decided to pass some time looking useful at work by installing firefox on a select number of PC's as some people had managed to obtain themselves some nice spyware which i wasnt too keen on. SO i install it and remove traces of IE to avoid their temptation to go back to the evil piece of shit. Then i get a text message off one of the guys a few hours later 'i've lost my favourites and unipass doesnt work'. Ok so i forgot to migrate their favourites, not a big deal. So i told them to go and get a new unipass (for those of you who dont know what that is, www.unipass.co.uk). Then i get a text off my mum (the FD) this morning 'firefox is causing probs, people cant connect from home and cant get unipass and most insurance companies arent compatible'. I fail to see any link between installing an alternative browser and RDP not working (if anyone knows, please tell me, i suspect it's just coincidence) My issue is - why the hell are unipass and 'most insurance companies' not compatible with it. This comes back to the whole IE boycot theory. Stupid fuckers need kicking in the teeth.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    This is why, whenever I replace someone's IE with firefox, I change the icon to the blue 'e' and install an IE lookalike theme. 90% of the time, they never notice anything's changed.

    There is no reason why installing firefox should kill RDP, but something you did in the process of "removing traces of IE" may have.
  • Options
    My issue is - why the hell are unipass and 'most insurance companies' not compatible with it.
    You'd be surprised how many of the "incompatible" sites work just fine when fed an IE6 browser string.

    Sure, some of the incompatibilities stem from IE-only features, but the vast majority are just old browser sniffing scripts that haven't been updated to account for firefox.
  • Options
    in this instance, removing traces consisted of just deleting the links wherever i found them. I wasnt gonna fully remove it cause i knew there'd still be times when they needed it.
  • Options
    Yeah, unfortunately my office's site that we manage is completely IE dependant and doesn't work on Firefox. I have dreams of making it work in FF but unfortunately I'm working against several years of other web designers and a large mountain of code which would have to be changed.
  • Options
    edited January 2006
    Yeah, unfortunately my office's site that we manage is completely IE dependant and doesn't work on Firefox. I have dreams of making it work in FF but unfortunately I'm working against several years of other web designers and a large mountain of code which would have to be changed.

    One of the good sides of modern design process, when styling is made in CSS files and the template is XHTML, the content doesn't change a bit when the interface is changed to new one or updated.

    But to some corporate jerks, that is just a waste of money. I bet many of them fought tooth to nail when the time came to replace 1800's typewriters with a computer.
  • Options
    To be honest, a major website rewrite every five years is excessive for some companies.

    Also, banking, insurance, and other financial sites cost more to rewrite because security and precision are crucial.
  • Options
    what does security have to do with the markup? which presumably is whats causing the incompatabilities to begin with.
  • Options
    edited January 2006
    Yes, presumably all important business logic is on a middle tier out of the reach of markup changes, but:

    1. Explaining that to the non-tech managers who are in charge of OKing the rewrite is not guaranteed to work.

    2. Most incompatibilities stem from heavy reliance on IE-only features (activex especially), which could go deeper than the markup level.

    3. If they've so spectacularly botched the front end, what makes you assume the rest of the app is properly divided into modular tiers?
  • Options
    But back in the good old days, everything, and I mean, literally EVERYTHING, from content to layout to styling, were written on same files (meaning, that someone might have written the layout and styling straight in to the PHP code he had written for the site, thusly, making it almost impossible for the client to modify the outlook of his site), so it might become expensive to work out new kind of security routines. BUT, it is nonetheless beneficial to separate the content, from the layout and styling, even from a security standpoint. AND, with todays technology, it can be done, more efficiently, fast and cost effectively. Well, cost effectiveness has improved since the .com bubble bursted, but anyway, today, you might only need one or two guys to build you a system, fast and I might even say that with added features and security with RoR for example, or atleast the added security that comes along with updated versions of PHP, ASP or whatever you are using. So, I would say that the cases where a complete rehaul of the system 5+ years old isn't beneficial. And I should know, since I'm working on a complete rehaul of a site 5+ years old :D
  • Options
    It really depends what the company is, and how important the web is to their business.

    My local pizza place, whose website is an address, times open, photo of the building, and link to a menu pdf, probably can stick with crappy tables and static pages, because the web is simply not vital to their business.

    When myspace fucks up their markup, however, they take a lot of crap for it because their entire core is web related.
  • Options
    Well, obviously. But any larger corporaton/company/chain, and the website is their most important employee, information channel and marketting machine, all rolled in to one.
  • Options
    Why did you feel the need to mess with someone's internet browser just because you thought they needed to use FF?

    =)
  • Options
    I didnt *think* they needed to use FF, i *knew* they did, because a) tabs kick the motherfucking ass, and b) FF is much less likely to be affected by spyware than IE, not to mention having an inbuilt popup blocker etc.
  • Options
    a) Tabs are a feature - many people do not want this feature nor require it. b) IE is only affected by spyware when you go to sites or download files with spyware. I used IE for 2 years prior to Opera and FireFox and I never had a spyware/adware problem. If you wanted to switch them to FireFox, you should've talked to them about it and explain it's advantages.
  • Options
    I fail to see why anyone with two browser windows open with one site in each would rather do that than have one browser windows open with 2 sites in. Especially when one is a subsite of the other or the information is somehow linked. And even moreso when they have 10 windows open in such a fashion cluttering up their already full taskbar. b) - exactly my point. firefox's popup blocker helps avoid such things happening because people dont click the thing which is going to magically make their internet 10x as fast. Users are idiots. That is a fact. I could use IE quite happily without getting spyware, these people clearly cannot. I'm not saying FF will stop them ever getting spyware, but it will help reduce the risk. If i wanted to switch them to firefox i'd switch them to firefox. Whether i chose to explain the advantages are irrelevant (though i did anyway) as these people dont know what spyware is or why it's a bad thing. The issue here is not that the users didnt like the new browser, it's that the new browser 'isnt compatible' with the majority of sites they use. And somehow i dont see me ringing up a major insurance company and saying 'hi mate, i'm moving the kids in our office over to firefox and it turns out your site isnt compatible, would you mind updating it for me?'
  • Options
    I can vouch on people not liking tabs. I convinced my mate to use Firefox BUT he insists on having Windows instead of tabs. Jesus wept.
  • Options
    Heh. I convinced mine to use tabs and literally about 5 minutes later he fucking loved them.
  • Options
    edited January 2006
    Live would be so much better if everything used tabs, Photoshop, my FTP program, Microsoft Word, life would just rule then.
  • Options
    If for anything at all, I would use FF for the AdBlock extension (best thing since sliced bread, and you know, sliced bread kicks some major ass). (.....and tabs)
  • Options
    Tabs in Photoshop? How many 30meg RAW images you have to color correct at the same time?
This discussion has been closed.