> > Just a thought. Nothing really useful.
> >
> > jul"You know, I reckon one could make money on a bug-free browser"ian
>
> I think that it is a good thought, but I don't think that it will quite work the same way. Extending your comparison, when the Japanese cars started to hit the North American market, you didn't need to get new roads for them to drive on, or new gas to put in them--the old and the new were completely compatible immediately and automatically. If you were the only person in the country driving a Japanese automobile, people might look at you kind of funny, but everything would work just peachy.


I agree that the browser issue is mostly about compatibility. However, if I put on my consumers glasses and cap, I only see software that doesn't work properly. In an ideal world, I shouldn't have to care why it doesn't work. Part of what I was thinking with the analogy was that the car industry has developed from the point where every car owner practically had to have a fair degree of mechanical knowledge, to the point where you just Pay'n'Drive. Parts of the computer industry have gone through (part of) the same development, particularly the hardware industry.

I don't understand your last comment: If I make (ha! That'll be the day!) a bug-free browser which supports HTML 4.0 to the letter, and I were the only one using it, It should still work alright. Or? Of course, next I'd have to implement support for Java, CSS, etc, etc., but as long as I don't claim to support something which I don't, I should be OK, I think.

Of course, there's the issue of whether one could make a profit on the browser, but I think I'll claim a little artistic freedom here ...


>
> With computers, you get a whole new problem. With browsers, it may well be possible, as you say, because in theory, a browser just needs to be able to read and interpret HTML.* However, there are a wide variety of browsers available, some better than others, and as Sam said, none of them worked for the case in point. As has been previously mentioned, a lot of the problem is linking the broswer to the OS, and that's where it gets even worse.


You most definitely have a point with the OSes. It reminds me of a remark I heard not long ago in a "My OS can beat your OS" discussion. It said something like "all current operating systems suck". I'd be inclined to agree. However, as Sam said somewhere in this thread, browsers as a class of software aren't inherently more complicated than other types of software which seem to work a lot better. Those developers have clearly found the necessary workarounds for that particular OS. As for GUI developing tools (also mentioned by Sam), well... You can't expect to be able to develop faultless applications with buggy tools, can you?


>
> Introducing a new OS to the market is nothing like introducing a new car. If only one person likes your OS, they will not be able to function normally with it. Getting a new OS established enough for people to make software for it would be no easy feat in our largely networked world. This, I think, is why nobody has come along and done a "Japanese car industry", as you put it--the two fields are simply too different for similar principles to be applied effectively.
>


I think you overestimate the importance of the OS: Aren't all the web standards specifically designed to enable different OSes to network together?

I think (but I don't really know) that it would be easier to start a software company producing large software like browsers or OSes than to start a car factory. But I'm sure that the difficulties would be comparable.

Also, I can't help thinking that we are guilty of the "Ah, but this is too huge to change, so let's not bother trying"-thought.


> Don "I wish it were that easy, though..." Monkey
>


jul"So do I: \"And now we're at it, dear God, I'd like a Ferrari\""ian