Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #835
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.networking, comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? |
| Date | 2011-11-29 00:36 +0000 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <jb19dq$dc6$3@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <jb0964$91k$1@dont-email.me> <3JKdnR_Vd-_AJk7TnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@supernews.com> <jb0o3r0gav@news2.newsguy.com> <2ImdnRrr-5AJmknTnZ2dnUVZ8nGdnZ2d@supernews.com> <2ImdnRXr-5BKl0nTnZ2dnUVZ8nGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Deux wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:13:40 -0600, Deux wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:40:43 -0500, Jean-David Beyer wrote: >> >>> I solved that. If a page does not render, I give up on that site. I buy >>> whatever it is from another vendor, or do not buy it at all. So it >>> costs them not to support my browser (Firefox). They may not know they >>> lost a sale because of their browser arrogance, but it costs them >>> nonetheless. >> Try factoring in the cost of extra development work needed, such as >> planning, build, testing, maintenance. How much revenue would they make >> from Lynx users? >> >> Their browser arrogance would probably save them money. > > I just noticed you said your browser is Firefox. Because of the large > market share it would cost a business money and would be foolish not > to support this popular browser. > > My last posts really apply to every browser apart from IE and Firefox > (maybe Safari as well). Those are the three you MIUST support back down to IE6 if you can. But Chrome is now pretty mandatory as well. Also a lot of p[people are now hooking in on small screen 'apps' on mobile kit..so it pays not to assume a thousand plus pixel screen.
Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-11-28 07:11 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Krzysztof Mitko <fakemail@krzysztof.at.eml.dot.cc> - 2011-11-28 08:04 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-11-28 15:25 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 10:48 -0600
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2011-11-28 14:40 -0500
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 16:13 -0600
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 16:27 -0600
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 09:24 -0500
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-30 14:37 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:34 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-11-28 17:50 -0500
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2011-11-29 08:23 +0200
Re (2): Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-12-01 13:25 +0000
Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:32 +0000
csiph-web