Hacker News Reader

The fact that one is from the Triassic while the other is from the Cretaceous doesn't make the latter less of a dinosaur.

View on HN

I can't think of any dinosaurs that first came into existence 3 years ago in 2011 and were the most recent dinosaur of its particular kind available until September 2012, 20 months ago. It seems like a terrible metaphor to say everything more than 20 months old is a "dinosaur". It's such a bad metaphor in fact that I wonder for the sanity, competence and/or neutrality of anyone seriously advocating it. I doubt anyone genuinely and sincerely believes that things more than 20 months old are all dinosaurs, even tech things. On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all if such terms were used as part of a propaganda or agenda driven attempt to mislead people. That sort of thing happens a lot.

This seems rather hyperbolic. What sort of agenda do you imagine I have that would make me want to propagandize and mislead people? Am I part of a secret cabal that seeks to enslave the sheeples by encouraging them to keep their web browsers reasonably up-to-date?

(For clarity, I wouldn't normally describe a two-year-old browser as "a dinosaur," mainly because the 5-year-old inside me thinks dinosaurs are too cool to use their species as a pejorative. But I would describe one like IE 9 as "fairly outdated," which is just a less goofy way of saying the same thing.)

Well, it may not be a dinosaur in terms of age, but it certainly is in terms of its featureset. Given IE's track record, the fact that it was the latest version 20 months ago doesn't mean it was a GOOD version 20 months ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com