0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 bot
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 19-06-10, 00:06
|
|
Chocolate Enthusiast
 Post: #263 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 199 days Last view: 9 hours |
Surprised? This isn't AB∆ lol |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-06-11, 17:24 (revision 1)
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #388 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 2 days Last view: 9 hours |
Firefox "Premium" coming Soon™: https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/06/10/057231/a-premium-firefox-is-coming-this-fall Mozilla has officially lost its way. What's "premium" for that product? There are talks of a VPN service (which you could sold separately, or even better, source it from any other provider than the same one that also provides your web browser), among other (unspecified as of today) services. Come on Mozilla, I know that the Googlebux teat is gonna run dry sooner than later, but this is NOT how you win users back. People left your FREE product because they couldn't stand your boneheaded antiuser design decisions, what the hell have gotten in your minds that lead you guys to believe that they're coming back, but this time as a paying customers?! ...not to be outdone by stupids, Opera is jumping on the "PRO GEAR SPEC" gaming solutions... with a "gaming grade" browser: https://games.slashdot.org/story/19/06/11/1524206/opera-launches-opera-gx-worlds-first-gaming-browser The solution to lost performance on your games? - - - - - TYPE GT-RSX TURBO HEXANITROHEXAAZAISOWURTZITANE WEB BROWSER (with extra NITRO buttonzzzz!). Yeah, that really hits the spot! I can already feel my precious frames per second coming back! UPDATE: Their hideous website is unusable on my pleb 768p panel, because I'm not a hardcore gamer, I guess? Scrolling is fixed to a screen a time, and the feature descriptions are cropped on my display because who needs to know the actual features of the product you're promoting/selling? Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 19-06-11, 18:53
|
|
Ensemble Darkpony
Post: #265 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 199 days Last view: 9 hours |
* Kawa weeps for Opera |
| BearOso |
Posted on 19-06-11, 19:09
|
 Post: #89 of 175 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1454 days Last view: 1454 days |
Posted by tomman Remember when Phoenix (Firefox) came out because the Mozilla browser had too much crap, and people wanted a browser to just be a browser? Firefox premium is like “Mountain Dew: Code Red car repair.” They’re abusing the brand recognition for a quick buck. You’re a non-profit, Mozilla, your sole purpose is your browser. Why are you trying to raise money if it’s at the expense, not benefit, of your only reason for existing? Oh, that’s right, you’re lead by asshole executives that don’t care about the company and just need more cash for illicit substances and silencing prostitutes. Yes, I’m disgruntled. :-) |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-06-11, 20:31 (revision 1)
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #389 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 2 days Last view: 9 hours |
Let's review what are the selling points of Opera GX: - GX Control (RAM/CPU control): With this, you supposedly can limit browser RAM/CPU usage. IMO I would achieve better results by just installing a script blocker, since most bloat comes from all those Javashits and the like. Also: how would this impact regular browsing? (say, will it kill all Javashits that go over the CPU threshold, or will refuse to open more tabs if the RAM usage goes past the RAM threshold). I'm on the fence on this one - Twitch Integration: Dude, you're already running a WEB BROWSER - why don't you simply open the Twitch website and do your stuff there?! Even an addon is overkill for this. - GX Corner: Cool, a "game deals of the day" section. Except that IS a task for a 3rd-party website! (which can easily adapt to changes across retail places, and you have to visit one anyway). I see no room for this as a "core web browser feature", it is like asking Seamonkey to add a window where I can check the balances of all of my bank accounts. Find a good deal tracker site, and LEARN HOW TO USE BOOKMARKS, people! - GX Sound: Sound effects for GUI actions were a silly idea back when Microsoft introduced them with Windows 95, nearly 25 years ago. They're still a silly idea, maybe even a stupid one that only 6yo kids would find "cool". Sure, they're fun when Hollyweird does it on their TV/cinema junk, but that shit gets boring real quick, and you end switching to blissful silence in a snap. I don't care if the Yuzo Koshiro himself came with a really cool tune that plays each time a tab is closed, a silly feature is that, not a selling point! - GX design / GX Themes: Adwaita is the one and only theme you will need™. Well, at least you are still allowed to change colors and backgrounds, and maybe other UI bits. Enjoy it while it lasts! (Also: why all "gamer grade" gear has to feature hideous techno-esque dark designs with loads of neon lights?! It's like the entire industry assumes that gamers have shit taste. But then, people still pay for Call of Duty and FIFA games religiously every year...) - Integrated Messengers: Once again, something that does NOT belong to a web browser (not even as an addon!), but to a suitable external application (preferably one which is allowed to connect to 3rd-party networks without getting your account banhammered). Also: I'm not going to install a freakin' web browser just to use Whatsapp (not that I'm actually getting an account anytime soon, despite the futile efforts of everybody and his dog to get me to join that cesspool of gossip and deception. Send me a email instead, your newfangled smarttoys have been capable of that since the Windows CE era!) - Video pop out: OK, I DO see utility for this one (I would have really appreciated it 7 years ago when Nico Nico Douga streamed Fate/Zero worldwide, for one... but then I found that video ripping addons were a far better choice for my specific needs, but I digress). While I still consider that videos do not belong to web browsers (and that content providers should just let users Bring Your Own Player, but then MUH PIRACY because I'm a TERRIRIST), this is the next best thing, I guess? Maybe this would be more practical as an addon, given the constant changes on streaming places just for the sake of change. - Ad blocker: Sadly we're at the stage where this should be a core feature of ANY device or application interacting with the Wide Open Web. No surprises there, Opera got you covered there since ads steal precious GHz and MBs from your gaming! - Free browser VPN: Paranoid people are the last one that would be playing videogames online, so why bother? NEXT! - Extensions: Crippled Chrome junk. *yawn* NEXT! - Video over game (Soon™): I'm also on the fence with this one. I see genuine usefulness for this (watch a tutorial while you game? I'm on!), but I'm unsure of where it belongs: the web browser? the launcher from the store where you bought your game? the game itself? a 3rd-party application? the underlying OS? Veredict: A bunch of gimmicks that would be far better on addons or separate applications, some really stupid features targeting people too lazy to use basic browser features (like bookmarks), and a couple of genuine useful features, all of that wrapped on a really horrible user interface don't really make the case for a product that noone was really wanting. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-06-21, 07:52
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #278 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
Posted by sureanem Web development is highly accessible, by which I mean it's really easy to get started. Consequently, it's not surprising that a lot of people have dabbled and gotten bored, or learned just enough to solve a problem that stood between them and what they *really* wanted to do. However, there's a big gap between "web developers often solve simple problems" and "web developers can only ever solve simple problems". Like any other field of expertise, you can dive as deep into web development as you want to go. It's also an excellent starting-point for lots of other fields - once you've got a handle on web programming basics, you might want to get server-side with PHP or Node, get into graphics programming with WebGL or audio programming with WebAudio, whet your Unix whistle with developer tools like Babel and WebPack, and now with WebAssembly there's an easy on-ramp to the world of high-performance pre-compiled languages. (As an aside, it's kind of hilarious how often you'll meet people who claim that "web development is simple" and also that "the web platform is too complex". What platform are the simple web developers developing for? What kind of developers are developing for the complex web platform?) Yes, of course. But if computers get Yx faster, X = X0/Y. 2003 XP wasn't elegant and optimized, but 2019 XP is by virtue of comparison to any other alternative. So, if I have two computers side-by-side and install the same version of the same OS on both of them, it can be bloated on one and svelte on the other at the same time? Just based on whatever the hardware specs happen to be? That seems to be a pretty useless definition of "elegant and optimized". A better definition would be "how many resources do I need to spend to solve the problem I care about". For some problems, like using unsecured WiFi, XP is one of the cheapest solutions there is. For other problems, like "storing files in a subdirectory", XP is ridiculously wasteful and you'd be better off with MS-DOS 2.0. In the other direction, there are things XP just can't do, so for somebody who needs to do those things, it's completely useless. Posted by Kawa I'm using it now. One of these days I'll get around to making a nice Solarized theme. Maybe. Fun fact: Firefox's dev-tools let you add a local CSS file to the current web-page, and when you edit the CSS, there's a "Save" button to write it back to the original CSS file. That should make theme editing much easier. Posted by BearOso I've ranted before about why Firefox isn't Mozilla's purpose (let alone their sole purpose) but skipping over that, I don't understand this reaction. Are you worried that Firefox will have big "UPGRADE TO PREMIUM" ads all over it? The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-21, 13:47
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #427 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by Screwtape Agreed. However, there's a big gap between "web developers often solve simple problems" and "web developers can only ever solve simple problems". No, I wouldn't think so. There's a name for this, I think. Dilbert principle? If you have a line of work that's very easy/simple, the people in that line of work would likewise be simple people. I suppose prostitution or flipping burgers would be the canonical example, not that I wish to compare web developers to them. And the opposite. Being a doctor/lawyer/CEO is high status because the people doing it are so, for instance. (As an aside, it's kind of hilarious how often you'll meet people who claim that "web development is simple" and also that "the web platform is too complex". What platform are the simple web developers developing for? What kind of developers are developing for the complex web platform?) The platform is extremely complex so that it's easy to develop on. An iPhone is far easier to use than a PDP-11 running Unix, despite the latter's OS being far less complex. So, if I have two computers side-by-side and install the same version of the same OS on both of them, it can be bloated on one and svelte on the other at the same time? Just based on whatever the hardware specs happen to be? That seems to be a pretty useless definition of "elegant and optimized". The measure of bloat is how much resources you've got left for other stuff, I'd say. I said "by virtue of comparison," did I not? A better definition would be "how many resources do I need to spend to solve the problem I care about". For some problems, like using unsecured WiFi, XP is one of the cheapest solutions there is. For other problems, like "storing files in a subdirectory", XP is ridiculously wasteful and you'd be better off with MS-DOS 2.0. In the other direction, there are things XP just can't do, so for somebody who needs to do those things, it's completely useless. Well, sure. But it's much harder to compare that way. I'd reckon we can hand-wave it as such: this all goes by Moore's law. If we say the OS uses X% of available resources and leaves 100-X% to the user, and X stays constant through the ages, then computing the absolute resource usage it'd go up exponentially as time goes on. So XP and earlier's resource usages practically round to zero on modern CPUs. What is it that XP can't do, other than artificial limitations like "run software using post-XP APIs"? The only thing I can come up with is the RAM thing, but they did put out a 64-bit version. I'm using it now. No, that wasn't meant to happen! I've ranted before about why Firefox isn't Mozilla's purpose (let alone their sole purpose) but skipping over that, I don't understand this reaction. Are you worried that Firefox will have big "UPGRADE TO PREMIUM" ads all over it? What is it, then? Obscure pet projects in the third world? I'm sure Google would very much like for that to be their raison d'etre, but Mozilla is as much Firefox as Microsoft is (or at least was) Windows. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-21, 14:21
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #527 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by sureanem Peter principle. Dilbert illustrates the opposite of your argument, as the smartest man in Dilbert's world is his local garbage man. He just likes picking up trash, and reckons that doing what he enjoys is better than putting his intellect to work in a more glamorous job that he hates. Please don't fuck up TWO threads with this social darwinist crap. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-21, 15:18
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #428 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by CaptainJistuce Yup, Peter principle is what I mean. Anyhow, I think it's a reasonable heuristic even if it doesn't apply for everyone. A friend of a friend is pretty much the IRL equivalent of that garbageman. He does some kind of unspecified activity (exam ghostwriting I think, although I'd be interested in hearing your guesses) a few days a year, and plays video games the remaining 51 weeks. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| NTI |
Posted on 19-06-21, 16:59
|
 Post: #21 of 40 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 714 days Last view: 714 days |
Posted by sureanem Except the garbage man DOES work to make the world a better place, even if it's to some minor extent, as just cleaning the streets. Unlike your friend of a friend who just waits for death to come, which probably fits your vision of defeatism and a conformist world, hence the disproportionate comparison. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-06-22, 08:24
|
|
Full mod
Post: #284 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
Posted by sureanem I bet lots of CEOs started out flipping burgers. How many doctors waited tables or worked as janitors to put themselves through medical school? Saying "people who do low-status task X are inherently low-status" is not just a dick move, it's a tactical error. What is it that XP can't do, other than artificial limitations like "run software using post-XP APIs"? What is it that MS-DOS 1.0 can't do, other than artificial limitations like "run software using post-1.0 APIs"? Heck, MS-DOS is *more* extensible than XP, since any software can provide its own hardware drivers, instead of being limited by what the OS kernel provides. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-22, 12:35
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #429 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by NTI Well yeah, sure. But in the sense of "there exist people who lack ambition and are content to do low-wage low-status low-effort jobs". I'd still say most people end up roughly at their level of incompetence. Posted by ScrewtapeThe doctors weren't technically working with medical school, but it was their full-time occupation. The CEOs, were they high status when flipping burgers? I can't think so. It's not that they're inherently low-status, but under the assumption that people want to earn money and get ahead in life they'd do whatever (simplified) earned them the most money, which also ought to be the hardest thing. This heuristic falls apart under a lot of special cases, in particular going from person's job -> person's status, and a lot of jobs which are desirable but poorly paid (art anything, game development) but to gauge whether people doing a more difficult job are more apt than those doing an easier one, it seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't think people feel more passion for web development than programming, if anything the other way around. The Stack Overflow Developer Survey says front-end devs likewise earn less. There's another VERY, VERY crude way way we can attempt to gauge this: gender weighing. Since more web developers are women, and more women are web developers, we can assume that since weighing by gender increases the share of women, it would also increase the share of web developers. Under these assumptions, we get that web developers are less helpful, less interested in coding in their spare time, etc. Obviously, you'd need the real dataset to draw any actual conclusions, so the statistical power is near nil. There's also the good ol' anecdotal evidence: when people are hired for reasons of nepotism/company politics/legal reasons, they seem more propense to me at least to end up doing front-end than back-end stuff. And you've got more people who give off that impression in the front-end branches too. What is it that MS-DOS 1.0 can't do, other than artificial limitations like "run software using post-1.0 APIs"? Heck, MS-DOS is *more* extensible than XP, since any software can provide its own hardware drivers, instead of being limited by what the OS kernel provides. Touché. Still, I don't get what actual shortcomings Windows XP has. Some minor security issues which don't actually matter, and they didn't bother porting DX12, but is there anything intrinsically wrong with it? As in, if Microsoft had just not released Windows 7, would I be noticing any downside if I were writing this post on Windows XP in 2019? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 19-06-22, 12:44
|
 Post: #139 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1879 days Last view: 1851 days |
It doesn't support ancient logograms? |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 19-06-22, 15:13
|
|
Is gonna need more trope
Post: #283 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 199 days Last view: 9 hours |
Posted by KakashiJokes aside, this is probably true in some sense. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-22, 16:16
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #430 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by Kakashi You're clearly trying to compare Windows NT to Windows XP, which is just hilarious scrambling considering how XP works. This isn't MS-DOS, buddy. Posted by Kawa Well, Windows uses UCS-2 internally and makes the same kind of assumptions you'd make under Latin-1 or similar in earlier versions. So to delete some I actually think this is a reasonable idea. Because otherwise, you have to buy into the Unicode racket ("only use libraries written by Competent Experts - get a U+202E? glhf"). So it's better to drop/Han unify/transcribe everything above the BMP, normalize text (e.g. Cyrillic -> Volapuk for identical letters, remove zero-width spaces, reverse RTL text and make it LTR, replace funny spaces with real ones, strip out "Zalgo" diacritics, strip out Emoji), and then assume you're dealing with In fact, things could be made even easier by just transcribing all languages. I suppose you'd want something like Latin-1 or Windows-1252 for Chinese, but then you can adequately represent all languages of note. As a bonus, you can escape troublesome characters without using backslash escapes: ‹a href=’https://example.com’›click ”here”‹/a›. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-06-22, 21:41
|
|
Post: #50 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 663 days Last view: 19 days |
win2k and later use UTF-16 internally. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-06-22, 22:49
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #435 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1764 days |
Posted by funkyass Yes, but they kind of pretend it's UCS-2. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 19-06-23, 01:43
|
|
Post: #140 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1879 days Last view: 1851 days |
You passed the test. You are easily baited. |
| SuperMikeMan |
Posted on 19-06-23, 08:29
|
|
Post: #5 of 6
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1947 days Last view: 75 days |
So, I got to deal with a fun bug in Firefox today. My mom was complaining to me that when she was opening links from her emails in Thunderbird it was opening it in a new Firefox window instead of in a new tab on her already open window like it used to. Since I'm the guy who knows computers in my family, I'm of course the one who has to fix this. After having a lot of trouble finding anything useful about this, and not even being sure if this was a Firefox problem or a Thunderbird problem, I eventually got to this thread about people having similar issues where they have an open Portable Firefox but external links were opening in a non-portable Firefox or a different profile. From there, I got to see this lovely bug report about the issue at hand. It turns out this is new behavior introduced in Firefox 67, where external links will always open in Firefox's default profile, to the point where it will open a new window to do so even if you already have a running firefox that's using some other profile, because fuck you, that's why. The bug was even nearly instantly closed as RESOLVED INVALID and has several newer bugs marked as duplicates of it, despite that the stated rationale for closing the report that way doesn't really make any sense, and the guy's only answer to the bug reporter and others asking for clarification and/or saying why it makes no sense was just to repeat it a few times. What I had to do to fix the specific issue I was dealing with was manually edit Firefox's profiles.ini to properly know about the profile on my mom's USB drive that I'd jerry rigged a firefox shortcut on the desktop to always open it with, so I could then set that profile to be the default one and give firefox what it wanted. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-06-23, 08:34
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #536 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
As always, I can only reply with "LOL FIREFOX" --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
