Woodruff wrote:Some people literally CAN'T use Firefox as their browser. I used to work at a place that REQUIRED Internet Explorer.
drunkmonkey wrote:We shouldn't be modeling CC to accommodate workplace restrictions.
Woodruff wrote:You are presuming - you DON'T KNOW what workplace restrictions may be in place. As I said before, that's my point. How can we possibly be "modeling CC to accomodate workplace restrictions" if we don't know what they are?
I don't understand your argument. You're saying CC should build in available add-ons, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox.
I said workplace restrictions shouldn't be accommodated. Then you told me I don't know what restrictions are in place, after you told me what restrictions you want to work around.
You can't say "Firefox add-ons aren't good enough, because some workplaces don't allow Firefox" and "We can't accommodate workplace restrictions because we don't know what they are."
What you've missed is the part previous to the initial statement by me which you quoted above. My response there is directly toward the contention that someone made that was:
"My favourite browser is Internet Explorer, but I don't have any problem using Firefox for CC so I can use all the add-ons. I don't see it so hard."
So perhaps you can now see that my argument was against the idea that "I don't have any problem using Firefox, so neither should anyone else", NOT that it was "accomodating workplace requirements". Good Lord, it's not hard people...just follow the damn conversation.
Once again, I will state that I don't think that the add-ons should necessarily be put onto the site itself. But that's only my personal opinion, and I don't have any real justification for it. However, the arguments being put forth against it are quite frankly full of holes and not well thought-through.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.