Sponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Holy microcrap Batman!
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 21, 2008 1:15 UTC (Fri) by mgb (subscriber, #3226)Parent article: A tour of the Microsoft open source lab
Since when does a 366x288 JPEG image need a megabyte? Oh, wait, my bad - these guys are micro$ofties. They send a 2272x1704 JPEG to the browser and then resize it in HTML. Just to add to the confusion, the HTML specifies two sets of sizes - 366x288 and 1825x1602 - neither of which matches the actual 2272x1704 image size. One set is specified via HEIGHT/WIDTH tags and one set via a STYLE, and then of course there's the actual image size. This is presumably so that different browsers exhibit one of three confusingly different behaviors, all with maximum inefficiency - a key feature of micro$oft products. The META claims that this crap was generated by "CommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 20917.1142)". Definitely something to avoid.
(Log in to post comments)
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 21, 2008 1:24 UTC (Fri) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Come on. Such comments are uncalled for.
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 22, 2008 21:44 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]
Why are they uncalled for? Here are some microsofties trying to look cool. They serve us a bunch of crappy pages that just prove how cool they are. When you are presented with a Trojan horse, at least you can require a minimum of craftsmanship.
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 23, 2008 19:56 UTC (Sun) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Right on. Microsofties are lame. Ideally they should be prevented from blogging, using the web, and most importantly using Linux. Why not just kill them all while we are at it :-)
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 23, 2008 21:23 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]
Of course they are lame; if they were smart, they'd be working over at Google XD
Flying chair alert
Posted Mar 26, 2008 7:39 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]
Be careful with comments about Microsoft employees jumping ship to Google. A certain someone at MS has been rumored to fly off the handle at this very idea...
Holy microcrap Batman!
Posted Mar 21, 2008 1:46 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Brand loyalty is the phrase you're looking for. Microsoft needed blogging, because everyone was blogging. People who ran companies that make beans were blogging. Grandparents were blogging. So Microsoft needed to be blogging too. Some individual Microsoft employees had been blogging, as ordinary users of (often Linux or *BSD based) blog sites. But at a corporate level Microsoft couldn't just use an existing blogging site, and they definitely couldn't install some sort of LAMP solution. It needed to use as many Microsoft technologies as possible - So they went with Community Server. But Community server isn't very good. It's riddled with bugs, and it seems that adding features you might want is either very difficult, or at least hard to do without effectively forking the project. Microsoft's own Community Server installs have had weird problems, outages, big feature gaps compared to competing blogs people are familiar with and so on. So it all looks rather poor, particularly for the Microsoft bloggers working on .NET (the platform used) and to a lesser extent SQL Server (the RDBMS used). It's also causes embarassment for the IE group (it doesn't obey anything resembling web standards, so they get beaten up about that, and it sometimes used to trigger rendering bugs in IE, so they'd get beaten up even more about that).
Chill-out Batman!
Posted Mar 21, 2008 6:48 UTC (Fri) by Obsid (guest, #42617) [Link]
Hey "mgb", We noticed this already, this should be fixed now. Keep your pants on next time man! ...no, really, keep them on. Steve
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même microcrap
Posted Mar 21, 2008 7:57 UTC (Fri) by mgb (subscriber, #3226) [Link]
You fixed one kind of problem Steve, but you created new problems. And there are many unrelated problems that have not been addressed. You now have no IMG WIDTH/HEIGHT attributes, which slows page rendering. You also have no IMG ALT attributes, so the page is compromised for those with text mode browsers or text-to-speech browsers. And you forgot to remove the old anchors although there's nothing left between the A and /A so they're unclickable and therefore just a waste of resources. They're not even commented out. But performance and accessibility problems are only the tip of the iceberg. Even after your "fix" there are a mind-blowing 249 XHTML validation errors just from that one page. Even humans generate better HTML than Community Server! By way of comparison, the page for this article downloads quickly, renders quickly, and has zero validation errors. (Nice job Mr Corbet!) Why not install some commercial-grade FLOSS blogging software on one of those Linux boxes in your lab, at least until Community Server is ready for alpha testing?