www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - A very basic blog about D

reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've (unsurprisingly) 
started with echo.

http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
Jul 07 2013
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/7/13 8:00 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog about D,
 implementing some unix utilities. I've (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
Nice idea! Comments: - The imperative version writes an extra space at the end (the joiner version does not have that problem). - The echo utility has an odd way to process the cmdline: if exactly the first argument is a -n, then do not writeln at the end. - It's quite likely the joiner-based version will be slower because it writes one character at a time. (Would be great to test and discuss performance as well.) Here's a conformant implementation for reference: http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c Andrei
Jul 07 2013
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
 http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); } But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, see e.g. http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. With that the blog entry would become quite interesting. Andrei
Jul 07 2013
next sibling parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 16:06:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
 http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); }
Right structure, wrong logic? Shouldn't it be: import std.stdio; void main(string[] args) { const noNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[noNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (!noNewline) writeln(); } or am I being dumb?
 But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, 
 see e.g. 
 http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. 
 With that the blog entry would become quite interesting.


 Andrei
Yeah, I reckon it will get quite interesting as I get in to the details. It's easy to see these basic utilities as trivial but they most certainly aren't, if you want to get them 100% right for all the options.
Jul 07 2013
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/7/13 10:08 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 16:06:43 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
 http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); }
Right structure, wrong logic? Shouldn't it be: import std.stdio; void main(string[] args) { const noNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[noNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (!noNewline) writeln(); } or am I being dumb?
No, I am :o).
 Yeah, I reckon it will get quite interesting as I get in to the details.
 It's easy to see these basic utilities as trivial but they most
 certainly aren't, if you want to get them 100% right for all the options.
Cool! Andrei
Jul 07 2013
prev sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el  7 de July a las 09:06 me escribiste:
 On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); } But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, see e.g. http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. With that the blog entry would become quite interesting.
If you want the specification, here it is :) http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All fathers are intimidating. They're intimidating because they are fathers. Once a man has children, for the rest of his life, his attitude is, "To hell with the world, I can make my own people. I'll eat whatever I want. I'll wear whatever I want, and I'll create whoever I want." -- Jerry Seinfeld
Jul 07 2013
parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:08:19 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu, el  7 de July a las 09:06 me escribiste:
 On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); } But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, see e.g. http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. With that the blog entry would become quite interesting.
If you want the specification, here it is :) http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html
I prefer this one :p http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/echo-msg.html From the opengroup spec: "If the first operand is -n, or if any of the operands contain a <backslash> character, the results are implementation-defined." Ah...specifications... I'm gonna stick with normal linux implementation, as described here: http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo However, on my machine, "echo --version" claims it's part of the GNU coreutils, but when you look at the coreutils docs: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/echo-invocation. tml#echo-invocation You get the sentence "the normally-special argument ‘--’ has no special meaning and is treated like any other string.", which should preclude the identifying message being printed in the first place!
Jul 07 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
John Colvin, el  7 de July a las 22:39 me escribiste:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:08:19 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el  7 de July a las 09:06 me escribiste:
On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); } But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, see e.g. http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. With that the blog entry would become quite interesting.
If you want the specification, here it is :) http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html
I prefer this one :p http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/echo-msg.html From the opengroup spec: "If the first operand is -n, or if any of the operands contain a <backslash> character, the results are implementation-defined." Ah...specifications... I'm gonna stick with normal linux implementation, as described here: http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo
That's not Linux, that's GNU coreutils :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A buscar no lo voy a ir -- Rata (Pichi Traful, febrero de 2011)
Jul 08 2013
parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 09:08:18 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 John Colvin, el  7 de July a las 22:39 me escribiste:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:08:19 UTC, Leandro Lucarella 
 wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el  7 de July a las 09:06 me escribiste:
On 7/7/13 8:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Here's a conformant implementation for reference:
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/histar/src/pkg/echo/echo.c
Hmm, that's actually not so good, it doesn't ensure that I/O was successful. Anyhow, here's a possibility: import std.stdout; void main(string[] args) { const appendNewline = args.length > 1 && args[1] == "-n"; foreach (i, arg; args[appendNewline + 1 .. $]) { if (i) write(' '); write(arg); } if (nl) writeln(); } But then I figured echo must do escape character processing, see e.g. http://www.raspberryginger.com/jbailey/minix/html/echo_8c-source.html. With that the blog entry would become quite interesting.
If you want the specification, here it is :) http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html
I prefer this one :p http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/echo-msg.html From the opengroup spec: "If the first operand is -n, or if any of the operands contain a <backslash> character, the results are implementation-defined." Ah...specifications... I'm gonna stick with normal linux implementation, as described here: http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo
That's not Linux, that's GNU coreutils :)
Sue me :p Strangely, it's in direct contradiction with the GNU coreutils documentation, as hosted on the GNU site.
Jul 08 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
John Colvin, el  8 de July a las 12:38 me escribiste:
I prefer this one :p http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/echo-msg.html

From the opengroup spec:
"If the first operand is -n, or if any of the operands contain a
<backslash> character, the results are implementation-defined."

Ah...specifications...


I'm gonna stick with normal linux implementation, as described
here:
http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo
That's not Linux, that's GNU coreutils :)
Sue me :p Strangely, it's in direct contradiction with the GNU coreutils documentation, as hosted on the GNU site.
You mean the joke one, or the real one? :P It seems to be the same as the real one (that I found at least), is just they are worded differently because one is in manpage format and the other one in info/html/manual format. http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/echo-invocation.html -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lo último que hay que pensar es que se desalinea la memoria Hay que priorizar como causa la idiotez propia Ya lo tengo asumido -- Pablete, filósofo contemporáneo desconocido
Jul 08 2013
parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 16:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 John Colvin, el  8 de July a las 12:38 me escribiste:
I prefer this one :p 
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/echo-msg.html

From the opengroup spec:
"If the first operand is -n, or if any of the operands 
contain a
<backslash> character, the results are 
implementation-defined."

Ah...specifications...


I'm gonna stick with normal linux implementation, as 
described
here:
http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo
That's not Linux, that's GNU coreutils :)
Sue me :p Strangely, it's in direct contradiction with the GNU coreutils documentation, as hosted on the GNU site.
You mean the joke one, or the real one? :P It seems to be the same as the real one (that I found at least), is just they are worded differently because one is in manpage format and the other one in info/html/manual format. http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/echo-invocation.html
From the gnu page you just linked: "the normally-special argument ‘--’ has no special meaning and is treated like any other string." From http://linux.die.net/man/1/echo: "--help display this help and exit --version output version information and exit" my terminals builtin echo seems to be compliant with the gnu site, but the seperate executable in /bin is the same as the linux.die.net one, whilst claiming on use of --version to be from gnu coreutils!!
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:55:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 7/7/13 8:00 AM, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
 about D,
 implementing some unix utilities. I've (unsurprisingly) 
 started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
Nice idea! Comments: - The imperative version writes an extra space at the end (the joiner version does not have that problem).
Woops, missed that.
 - The echo utility has an odd way to process the cmdline: if 
 exactly the first argument is a -n, then do not writeln at the 
 end.
As mentioned in the blog, i'll be covering the various flags later.
 - It's quite likely the joiner-based version will be slower 
 because it writes one character at a time. (Would be great to 
 test and discuss performance as well.)
I plan on continuing both versions through successive posts, so when they're complete I'll do a head-to-head between them, including performance.
Jul 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Baz" <burg.basile yahoo.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
 about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've 
 (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
That's interesting...but I'm not a big fan of collecting hundreds of links...I think that someone should create something like http://www.delphifeeds.com/ but for D...
Jul 08 2013
next sibling parent reply "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:39:46 UTC, Baz wrote:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC,
 That's interesting...but I'm not a big fan of collecting 
 hundreds
 of links...I think that someone should create something like
 http://www.delphifeeds.com/ but for D...
blogs.dlang.org ... ? There'd need to be some way of filtering upstreams by topic. I blog about D, but not _just_ about D.
Jul 08 2013
next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:53:45 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
 There'd need to be some way of filtering upstreams by topic. I 
 blog about D, but not _just_ about D.
http://planet.dsource.org has already been mentioned and it does filter by tags.
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Baz" <burg.basile yahoo.com> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:53:45 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:
 On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:39:46 UTC, Baz wrote:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC,
 That's interesting...but I'm not a big fan of collecting 
 hundreds
 of links...I think that someone should create something like
 http://www.delphifeeds.com/ but for D...
blogs.dlang.org ... ? There'd need to be some way of filtering upstreams by topic. I blog about D, but not _just_ about D.
You're wrong, there's a real need for promoting D worldwide. Just for example, this mainstream (french) programming site has (had?) a forum for D which is not updated or used at all: http://www.developpez.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=fadd36f8505c59f0714e4e24a0c5a195&f=1180 Fedora a few years ago has proposed the D language as a part of their very "extremist open source ashole repository". The fact is that D is totally missing from their dev packages ("sudo yum i want some only opensource douche stuff even if I have to type make make install every two minutes"). And If you setup dmd manually they'll propose you to setup ldc, which is not possible due to some broken package dependencies... Blogs are usefull, D can be used in many editors and compiled in two portables IDE (Xamarin and Geany) and in another mainstream win-only-IDE(VS)...
Jul 08 2013
next sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 18:54:30 UTC, Baz wrote:
 Fedora a few years ago has proposed the D language as a part of 
 their very "extremist open source ashole repository". The fact 
 is that D is totally missing from their dev packages ("sudo yum 
 i want some only opensource douche stuff even if I have to type 
 make make install every two minutes"). And If you setup dmd 
 manually they'll propose you to setup ldc, which is not 
 possible due to some broken package dependencies...
Where did that come from? I never knew there was such anger against strict open-source movements, but recently I've been rudely awakened. I use fedora for everything I do with D. I have dmd, ldc and gdc all set up, no significant problems. I also make use of yum a great deal, and generally find everything I need with little to no trouble, no make involved. Sure, dmd isn't gonna go in the official repositories, but rpmfusion exists for a reason...
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 18:54:30 UTC, Baz wrote:
 You're wrong, there's a real need for promoting D worldwide.
Did I say otherwise? I am not sure you are reacting to what I actually wrote.
 Just for example, this mainstream (french) programming site has 
 (had?) a forum for D which is not updated or used at all: 
 http://www.developpez.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=fadd36f8505c59f0714e4e24a0c5a195&f=1180
That's a shame.
 Fedora a few years ago has proposed the D language as a part of 
 their very "extremist open source ashole repository". The fact 
 is that D is totally missing from their dev packages ("sudo yum 
 i want some only opensource douche stuff even if I have to type 
 make make install every two minutes"). And If you setup dmd 
 manually they'll propose you to setup ldc, which is not 
 possible due to some broken package dependencies...
I don't understand your visceral hostility here. No one is excluding D on licensing grounds -- there might be some distros that would prefer not to include DMD, but they'd be happy to include GDC and/or LDC. If D compilers are missing from a distro, or have broken dependencies, it's because no one is stepping up to take responsibility for packaging.
 Blogs are usefull, D can be used in many editors and compiled 
 in two portables IDE (Xamarin and Geany) and in another 
 mainstream win-only-IDE(VS)...
Yes, blogs are useful. I'm still not sure who your argument is with, though.
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 8 July 2013 19:54, Baz <burg.basile yahoo.com> wrote:
 On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:53:45 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
 On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:39:46 UTC, Baz wrote:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC,
 That's interesting...but I'm not a big fan of collecting hundreds
 of links...I think that someone should create something like
 http://www.delphifeeds.com/ but for D...
blogs.dlang.org ... ? There'd need to be some way of filtering upstreams by topic. I blog about D, but not _just_ about D.
You're wrong, there's a real need for promoting D worldwide. Just for example, this mainstream (french) programming site has (had?) a forum for D which is not updated or used at all: http://www.developpez.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=fadd36f8505c59f0714e4e24a0c5a195&f=1180
Call me an inertial developer, but forums are an arcane place to discussion programming languages... unlike mailing lists :o) Saying that,there's an amazing depth of information on forums, for example (taken from coding horror): - A 12 year old girl who finds a forum community of rabid enthusiasts willing to help her rebuild a Fiero from scratch? Check. - The most obsessive breakdown of Lego collectible minifig kits you'll find anywhere on the Internet? Check. - Some of the most practical information on stunt kiting in the world? Check. - The only place I could find with scarily powerful squirt gun instructions and advice? Check. - The underlying research for a New Yorker article outing a potential serial marathon cheater? Check. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Jul 08 2013
parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
Not sure if a developer should look for excuses for sticking with 
suboptimal design.
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling parent "Mr. Anonymous" <mailnew4ster gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 17:39:46 UTC, Baz wrote:
 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
 about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've 
 (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
That's interesting...but I'm not a big fan of collecting hundreds of links...I think that someone should create something like http://www.delphifeeds.com/ but for D...
Planet D? http://planet.dsource.org/
Jul 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
 about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've 
 (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
Seeing as most of the traffic I'm getting is from this thread, I thought it might be interesting for people to see some stats about where people are from, what browsers they're using etc. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/910836/Webstats_02072013-10_09072013-09.png A lot of windows users, although that's skewed by people browsing from work. I hope that accounts for the IE contingent as well!
Jul 09 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:35:17 +0200
"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog=20
 about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've=20
 (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
=20 Seeing as most of the traffic I'm getting is from this thread, I=20 thought it might be interesting for people to see some stats=20 about where people are from, what browsers they're using etc. =20 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/910836/Webstats_02072013-10_09072013-=
09.png

Interesting!

 A lot of windows users, although that's skewed by people browsing=20
 from work. I hope that accounts for the IE contingent as well!
=46rom the developer's perspective, ever since v7, IE isn't as bad as people say. I do webdev and I've had just as much trouble with FF as I've had with IE. In fact, the only *big* problems I've had with IE7+ were in conjunction with Flash. I've found that when you do have a problem with a browser (whether IE or anything else), then it's almost always just an indication that you're overengineering something. Just take a step back, tone down the fancy stuff (you'll almost always find you didn't need it), and the idealism (most of webdev's "best practices" are a total load of crap - and they're mostly spread by the same clowns who think PHP and JS are good languages), and everything will work out just fine on all browsers, including IE. One thing to always keep in mind is that using newer web features and techniques will always lead you into all sorts of bugs and compatibility issues and such (it's just a natural consequence), but most of the older features and techniques have become totally rock solid (and fast) on pretty much damn near *anything* and aren't even any harder to use (heck, frequently they're easier).
Jul 13 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 23:40:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 From the developer's perspective, ever since v7, IE isn't as 
 bad as people say. I do webdev and I've had just as much 
 trouble with FF as I've had with IE.
Personally, I found Firefox 2 to be the biggest piece of trash back in the day, I'd rather use IE6 as a user and a developer (IE6 had bugs and incomplete implementations, sure, but there were pretty easy workarounds for all of them - they were annoying at worst, rather than show-stoppers. FF2 just simply didn't offer the features I wanted at all, despite them being in the CSS standard.) And nowadays, the #1 source of pain, by *far*, is Google Chrome. As in virtually every bug I get for my work sites is a Chrome bug in their basic html (they, I kid you not, broke <form> with multiple submit buttons in one of their releases, and <a target="_BLANK"> in one shortly thereafter). Bog simple html, worked everywhere else, failed in Chrome after one of their waaay too frequent automatic updates) or css handling. And all bets are off if you do try to get fancy, even if it works today on chrome 1337, who knows how many bugs they'll introduce in the 236 releases that will auto-update by this time next week. but it can run DOOM..... at a frame rate similar to my old Pentium 1 computer despite being on a 100x faster processor. lol, what a joke. I can't believe so many people actually use that crap. The #2 hassle nowadays? ipads.
Jul 13 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 02:20:12 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 23:40:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 From the developer's perspective, ever since v7, IE isn't as=20
 bad as people say. I do webdev and I've had just as much=20
 trouble with FF as I've had with IE.
=20 Personally, I found Firefox 2 to be the biggest piece of trash=20 back in the day, I'd rather use IE6 as a user and a developer=20 (IE6 had bugs and incomplete implementations, sure, but there=20 were pretty easy workarounds for all of them - they were annoying=20 at worst, rather than show-stoppers. FF2 just simply didn't offer=20 the features I wanted at all, despite them being in the CSS=20 standard.) =20
=46rom a user perspective, FF2 is actually my favorite browser, as long as it's loaded up (or rather, bogged down) with all my usual extensions. But you're right, from an implementation standpoint it could be much better. All sorts of bugs and leeks and inefficiencies and such (I'd *love* a modern browser with a FF2+Winestripe/NoScript/AdblockPlus interface). As an example of rendering issues, the lack of "inline-block" can be annoying, and so is the incomplete implementation of "(min|max)-(width|height)". And, maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that those are all old enough that they could've/should've been there even at the time. (Although I *just* now stumbled on a "display:-moz-inline-stack" that's supposed to work. I'll have to check into that.) I even had one PITA problem where FF2 (*and* later versions IIRC) would magically fail to show any auto-resizing Flash applet if the height/width setting of all the containers up through the chain weren't exactly as it expected. *Nothing* else had a problem with it except a bunch of versions of FF. But whatever, even with most of those issues, layout tables easily solve like 95% of HTML/CSS problems anyway, and with zero non-imaginary downsides (yea, they're a bit verbose, but *HTML* is freaking verbose anyway so whatever). Sure, layout tables are web heresy, but hey, irritating the HTML dogma pushers (while sidestepping most of the compatibility troubles they face) is half the fun!
 And nowadays, the #1 source of pain, by *far*, is Google Chrome.=20
 As in virtually every bug I get for my work sites is a Chrome bug=20
 in their basic html (they, I kid you not, broke <form> with=20
 multiple submit buttons in one of their releases, and <a=20
 target=3D"_BLANK"> in one shortly thereafter). Bog simple html,=20
 worked everywhere else, failed in Chrome after one of their waaay=20
 too frequent automatic updates) or css handling. And all bets are=20
 off if you do try to get fancy, even if it works today on chrome=20
 1337, who knows how many bugs they'll introduce in the 236=20
 releases that will auto-update by this time next week.
=20
Yea, if there were one browser I could eradicate from all history, it wouldn't be IE, it would be Chrome (IE actually had some good stuff: its box model and its JS interface for mouse buttons were actually sane - unlike W3C's absolute dumbshit box model and mouse interface). In fact, I never even allow Chrome to touch my computers. I use SRWare Iron instead (it literally is Chrome but with most of the "take over your computer" shitware removed). And even that I still never touch for anything but compatibility testing because the interface is the absolute biggest piece of shit of any web browser in history...or at least it was until all the other dumbfuck browser developers decided to ape Google's moronic UI abominations (although the unified forward/back button was originally MS's abomination, and AwfulBars are Mozilla's fault, but the disregard for system settings and the whole "hide/shrink/conflate fucking everything we can" trend are mainly Google's doing). And it's 100% Chrome's fault that there's no longer any widely-compatible way to embed non-flash media. The <object> tag had been working everywhere relevant for ages (Netscape's <embed> died a loooong time ago.) But then the assholes from Google came along, got the W3C to standardize a completely incompatible and unneeded alternative, included that in Chrome and did NOT include a working <object> tag. Why disregard standards like MS does when you can just bend the "standard" to your own whim? Yea, Google likes standards as long as Google creates them. So thanks for all that, Chrome.
 but it can run DOOM..... at a frame rate similar to my old=20
 Pentium 1 computer despite being on a 100x faster processor. lol,=20
 what a joke. I can't believe so many people actually use that=20
 crap.
=20
Hah! I know, right? Shit, my 2005 *MP3 player* can run DOOM. Plus playing a game in a browser is just simply bad user experience, whether good framerate or not. And yea, like JS is something we really should be encouraging anyway. I actually wrote a little blurb on the same point some time back: https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/quake-shows-javascript-is-slow-= not-fast Although you've just said essentially the same thing far, far more succinctly ;)
 The #2 hassle nowadays? ipads.
Yea maybe. But I figure if someone's going to try to browse the web on a freaking *capacitive* touchscreen, of all things (and such an orwellian one at that), then they can just be happy with whatever just happens to actually work. I do think iOS deserves some kudos for having the balls to finally kill off Flash even if it's what would normally be a dumb design decision ("Uhh, hello, let the *user* opt-in with a big flashing 'you're about to kill your battery, security and stability' warning if they have reason to do so."). But Flash was never *really* going to start going away without some major player finally saying "Ok, you know what? That's it. No more Flash. Fuck Flash. Go screw yourself, Adobe." Ultimately though, that only means Flash gets replaced by HTML5, so it's kinda like replacing Hitler with Napoleon - technically a win, but not much.
Jul 13 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 July 2013 at 03:52:34 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 From a user perspective, FF2 is actually my favorite browser, 
 as long as it's loaded up (or rather, bogged down) with all my 
 usual extensions.
Eh, the UI was indeed pretty ok. Actually even modern firefox can look pretty similar to it, so I don't hate firefox with a passion the way I do chrome, since it is a pretty decent ui. But I, believe it or not, have a soft spot for IE6. Its interface was simple enough, it did separate processes for each site way before chrome "invented" it (IE6 did it the sane way: one process per window, something Firefox actively prevents you from doing even if you specifically ask for it! "Program X has detected an instance already running" should be a crime.) so while IE6 was prone to crashing somewhat often, it at least had limited damage. Important note though: change the security settings to disable scripts on non-trusted sites. But that's not just an IE6 tip, that is even more necessary today than it was ten years ago... computers have gotten faster, javascript has gotten faster, but websites have gotten slower. And I actually like noscript a bit better than IE's security settings screen, it is more convenient, but at least IE's functionality is built in. I find news websites especially, but also other ones like dlang.org, are completely unusable without JS blocked. dlang.org's stupid hypenation thing drags it to a crawl. News sites put up 1,000 bars for twitter and facebook and whatever else that slow them brutally. Hey, webmasters, if you have content I actually like and want to share, I'll copy paste the link. I don't need those useless buttons.... and if they slow the loading so much, I'll just close the site, so you lose. But with js disabled it isn't so bad.
 As an example of rendering issues, the lack of
 "inline-block" can be annoying, and so is the incomplete
YES. inline-block makes css useful. I'm not even really exaggerating there, that's how important I think it is. floats are waaay too painful to deal with. The moz-inline-stack thing doesn't quite work the same iirc, I remember trying it and finding it didn't make it a real block, so you couldn't center text or something like that inside it. But meh, FF2 is virtually dead so I just ignore it. inline-block btw was in CSS 2.0. Microsoft implemented it buggily, but the functionality was there. konqueror did it right (khtml used to be really nice until Apple and Google got their filthy paws all over it). But the standards committee was always biased toward Netscape, and Firefox was Netscape's successor so they inherited that bias. This is a kinda strong charge that I can't prove, but I think the case is pretty good: look at how many times IE did something clearly superior to Netscape/early Firefox, the box model, the mouse buttons that you mentioned, and there's more too.... but the standard always seemed to prefer the NS/FF way. And when FF didn't implement something, you could count on the standard to be revised some time later. It happened with CSS 2.0 -> CSS 2.1, conveniently dropping features FF never implemented (thus making them "standards compliant"), and recently happened again with display: run-in, which they said was unimplementable, but Microsoft managed to do it right years ago. Firefox never did, and instead of being lambasted for not following the standard, the standard just got revised again to agree with FF. (and of course, one defense is "it is useless anyway".... well yes, but only because you idiots somehow managed to get significant market share and never bothered to implement it! There's been more than one time I wanted to use it, saw it working in IE8 and rejoiced, just to see it fail in firefox 9 or whatever the hell it was at last year when I tried this. Ugh.) If the standard got revised to agree with IE6's implementation back in the day, I'd be for that. IE6 was a de-facto standard anyway. But that rarely happened. The other way around though, common. (one thing I'll praise HTML5 for doing though is writing down some IE implementations as the standard, finally making something that works in practice, standards-compliant too, like drag and drop for instance. But even then they managed to muck some things up.)
 But whatever, even with most of those issues, layout tables 
 easily solve like 95% of HTML/CSS problems anyway, and with 
 zero non-imaginary downsides
I can't agree with you there, I dislike layout tables and here's why: one week, the client says 3 columns are in. Next week, he changes his mind and wants it back to 2 columns. Not too hard with the css things. A lot of boring work with tables. Or "add a row there", not too hard when you can just throw it in with a clean html file, but very difficult to find the right place in a mess of nested tables. (Perhaps I've just had bad experience because the html is ugly as sin, but I've never seen clean layout table code except isolated in specific instances. I find writing clean css based html to be very easy.) There *are* times when I think they are right, but usually these are very limited places, and I actually prefer the whole display: table thing now. Then when (not if!) the client changes his mind again, there's a moderate chance that it can be changed: for instance, changing a form from: Name: ___________ Email: ___________ to Name: _______________ Email: ______________ With <table> is a pain. But with the css, you can change it form display: table-cell to display:block in the appropriate place and be done with it. (Now display: table still leaves some to be desired, I prefer inline-block when I can, but still it is a good step.)
 irritating the HTML dogma pushers (while sidestepping most of 
 the compatibility troubles they face) is half the fun!
I'll agree with that though, it does make me smile to say "just ignore the standard lol".
 In fact, I never even allow Chrome to touch my computers.
I wish I could, but one of my big clients uses it religiously so I need to have a copy every so often to track down the bugs he'll inevitably find. For a while I started replying "get a better browser" whenever this came up, but alas even if he personally did, there's enough marketshare of it out there now that it wouldn't really solve the problem business-wise.
 Why disregard standards like MS does when you can just bend the 
 "standard" to your own whim? Yea, Google likes standards as 
 long as Google creates them.
Aye, Google has really taken over from Netscape in my above rant now.
 I actually wrote a little blurb on the same point some time 
 back:
heh I'm pretty sure I read it a while ago too.
 Yea maybe. But I figure if someone's going to try to browse the 
 web on a freaking *capacitive* touchscreen, of all things (and
 such an orwellian one at that), then they can just be happy 
 with whatever just happens to actually work.
Aye, but again, what the bosses use, I have to use. And he went so far as to buy me one of those ipads so I wouldn't have any excuses to ignore it any more too :( (On the bright side though, I do like watching sports on it. Almost completely useless for doing actual work with it, touchscreens are terrible, but not bad to prop up like a little tv and watch stuff on.)
 I do think iOS deserves some kudos for having the balls to 
 finally kill off Flash
Blargh, I wish Flash was dead, but it keeps coming back up. There's the ogg vs mpeg format war that is a huge hassle that means now all my work sites are forced to write even more code: <video> <source mp4> (most things) <source mp4 lower res> (the iphone refuses to play higher res) <source ogv> (firefox) <object> (flash fallback) <embed /> (i think this is useless) <a href="download"></a> (finally the only one that should be there IMO) </object> </video> Blargh. And then "the ipad video UI doesn't match the Chrome which doesn't match the Firefox which doesn't match the Flash" Just shoot me.
Jul 14 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:56:40 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 
 But I, believe it or not, have a soft spot for IE6. Its interface
 was simple enough, it did separate processes for each site way
 before chrome "invented" it 
Interesting, either I never noticed that, or I had totally forgotten. Very good point.
 "Program X has detected an
 instance already running" should be a crime.
Yea, I'm not a fan of that either. There have been some cases where I felt it was sensible: sometimes there's a very resource-hungry program that doesn't make much sense to have multiple copies running anyway. For example, a lot of games. But normally it's just an asinine pain. The one that bugs me most is actually Win7 itself. On XP, if I tell the start menu or quick launch to open a file manager window to a particular starting directory, then it just does so. Always. But Win7 is just "smart" enough to be stupid, so it'll *only* obey that command *if* it first goes behind my back and detects that none of my existing windows just happen to be showing my chosen "starting point" directory. If there is one, it'll *refuse* my command to open a file manager window and instead just switch to the one I already know damn well I already have open (Because clearly, according to my computer, I apparently don't know what the hell I'm doing). Which means *every* time I want to open two or more file manager windows, I have fool this stupid fucking piece of shit NannyOS into doing so, instead of you know, just clicking the damn button however many times I need. God dammit I fucking *hate* post-XP Windows.
 
 Important note though: change the security settings to disable
 scripts on non-trusted sites.
Ah, good tip. I hadn't thought of that. (For me, it was just "IE doesn't have NoScript, therefore I shouldn't use IE for anything unless I have to.")
But that's not just an IE6 tip,
 that is even more necessary today than it was ten years ago...
 computers have gotten faster, javascript has gotten faster, but
 websites have gotten slower.
Yup. So depressingly true. And what's really bizarre about it is that a LOT of that JS is specifically in the name of speeding up the site ("Because you don't have to redownload *all* 1k of HTML on every link!") Are these people really *that* incapable of perceiving the difference between a 5-10+ second "JS extravaganza page" load and a <= 1sec static page load? You'd think that would clue them in to "Gee, maybe this shit *isn't* actually making my page faster like people are telling me it should." And what's the extra bonus for that pessimization? Broken "back", broken "forward", broken bookmarking, and broken link sharing. Congratulations, you've just "best practiced" your website into a slow-motion garbage heap.
 I find news websites especially, but also other ones like
 dlang.org, are completely unusable without JS blocked.
 dlang.org's stupid hypenation thing drags it to a crawl. News
 sites put up 1,000 bars for twitter and facebook and whatever
 else that slow them brutally.
 
 Hey, webmasters, if you have content I actually like and want to
 share, I'll copy paste the link. I don't need those useless
 buttons.... and if they slow the loading so much, I'll just close
 the site, so you lose.
 
Yup. And speaking of: https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/we-need-browsers-with-built-in-share-on-site-x
 But with js disabled it isn't so bad.
 
Exactly. And so much for the "Eh, it'll be fast because it's already in most user's caches anyway." Yea, well, even if so it still has to get executed. JS's bottleneck was never bandwidth.
 As an example of rendering issues, the lack of
 "inline-block" can be annoying, and so is the incomplete
YES. inline-block makes css useful. I'm not even really exaggerating there, that's how important I think it is. floats are waaay too painful to deal with.
Floats are good for what they were originally intended for (wrapping text around an image) and for nothing else. I've fumbled around with layouts that involved float, and I don't think a single attempt ever made it into my local VCS commits, let alone production.
 The moz-inline-stack thing doesn't quite work the same iirc, I
 remember trying it and finding it didn't make it a real block, so
 you couldn't center text or something like that inside it. But
 meh, FF2 is virtually dead so I just ignore it.
 
While I do code for FF2, I've accepted that I'm probably doing it only for my own sake. Just so I can do as much as I can without putting up with a unified forward/back, browser skin, address bar with unicorn-rainbow-vomit Fisher-Price-sized text, or all that UI over-minimalism. But layout tables solve any issues I have easily enough, and nothing ever chokes on them, so I don't really find it to be any extra trouble.
 
 inline-block btw was in CSS 2.0.
That's what I thought, but then I couldn't find any source for that info so I started second-guessing it. Good to hear it's not just my imagination then :)
 But the standards committee was always biased toward Netscape,
 and Firefox was Netscape's successor so they inherited that bias.
 This is a kinda strong charge that I can't prove, but I think the
 case is pretty good: look at how many times IE did something
 clearly superior to Netscape/early Firefox, the box model, the
 mouse buttons that you mentioned, and there's more too.... but
 the standard always seemed to prefer the NS/FF way. And when FF
 didn't implement something, you could count on the standard to be
 revised some time later. It happened with CSS 2.0 -> CSS 2.1,
 conveniently dropping features FF never implemented (thus making
 them "standards compliant"), and recently happened again with
 display: run-in, which they said was unimplementable, but
 Microsoft managed to do it right years ago. Firefox never did,
 and instead of being lambasted for not following the standard,
 the standard just got revised again to agree with FF.
 
Yea, the non-IE browsers always went off doing their own thing, too. But IE's the one that gets condemned as "non-standard" just because web standards are pretty much defined as "whatever big bad MS *isn't* doing". Not that MS doesn't deserve the "big bad" label, but standards need to be a meritocracy - there's no room for politics. Unfortunately, the W3C clearly hasn't been doing that consistently. Now I don't know, it may not have anything to do with bias against MS, maybe MS just hadn't been very active or very sensible in W3C proceedings, or whatever, but whatever the reason, W3C hasn't been a case of "the motion with the best merit wins".
 
 But whatever, even with most of those issues, layout tables 
 easily solve like 95% of HTML/CSS problems anyway, and with 
 zero non-imaginary downsides
I can't agree with you there, I dislike layout tables and here's why: one week, the client says 3 columns are in. Next week, he changes his mind and wants it back to 2 columns. Not too hard with the css things. A lot of boring work with tables. Or "add a row there", not too hard when you can just throw it in with a clean html file, but very difficult to find the right place in a mess of nested tables. [...] With <table> is a pain. But with the css, you can change it form display: table-cell to display:block in the appropriate place and be done with it. (Now display: table still leaves some to be desired, I prefer inline-block when I can, but still it is a good step.)
I do actually see your point there, and can relate to a certain extent (particularly with "inline-block"). But my experience has been that manually re-jiggering HTML (including layout tables), while imperfect, has always been pretty minor and quick when compared to most of my other tasks. And those minor annoyances have been more than made up for by all the times I've banged my head against the wall over some PITA HTML/CSS problem, then decided "fuck this shit, I'm using tables" and wound up with a working, ultra-compatible, (and often conceptually simpler!) solution within minutes. YMMV, I guess. And I'll admit I have been lucky lately with minimal nitpickery from clients and armchair-expert designers.
 In fact, I never even allow Chrome to touch my computers.
I wish I could, but one of my big clients uses it religiously so I need to have a copy every so often to track down the bugs he'll inevitably find.
I use SRWare Iron in place of Chrome (as I said, it literally is Chrome), but if you have to put up with Chrome's "bug of the day" junk then yea I guess that wouldn't work. Although at that point I would reach for VirtualBox. If I ever have to run the real Chrome, it's getting its ass sandboxed.
 Yea maybe. But I figure if someone's going to try to browse the 
 web on a freaking *capacitive* touchscreen, of all things (and
 such an orwellian one at that), then they can just be happy 
 with whatever just happens to actually work.
Aye, but again, what the bosses use, I have to use. And he went so far as to buy me one of those ipads so I wouldn't have any excuses to ignore it any more too :(
Certainly true. I had a similar thing last year: A project I was getting involved in needed to work on iOS (for very valid business reasons that I do actually agree with), so the guy got me a loaner iPhone that I pretty much ended up having to tote around for much of the year. I don't miss that thing one bit.
 (On the bright side though, I do like watching sports on it.
 Almost completely useless for doing actual work with it,
Heh, I can't stand tiny TVs (I don't even like using portable game systems). They do have some nice uses (Shazam is just as awesome as its name is awful), but I've been spoiled enough by some of the best aspects of the now-dead PalmOS that I can't help seeing them as dumbed-down orwellian toy versions of what an internet-connected Palm could have been. I just don't like the iOS/Android interfaces *at all*, and the iOS lock-downs are just inexcusable.
 touchscreens are terrible, 
The capacitive ones are the worst. (And they're all capacitive now.) And it really gets me how touchscreen devices are promoted with the idealized concept of "touch" even though they *eliminate* tactile sensation.
 I do think iOS deserves some kudos for having the balls to 
 finally kill off Flash
Blargh, I wish Flash was dead, but it keeps coming back up. There's the ogg vs mpeg format war that is a huge hassle that means now all my work sites are forced to write even more code: <video> <source mp4> (most things) <source mp4 lower res> (the iphone refuses to play higher res) <source ogv> (firefox) <object> (flash fallback) <embed /> (i think this is useless) <a href="download"></a> (finally the only one that should be there IMO) </object> </video>
True...There was one point on a site I was doing where [strongly against my normal design principles] we needed some pages with embedded audio. I tossed in an <object> tag pointing to an mp3 and it worked great on every browser I threw at it...except Chrome. Ugh. The site already required Flash for some other stuff (things that JS just wasn't up to, certainly not at the time), so not wanting to deal with any browser-conditional stuff, I ended up playing the audio via a trivial flash applet. "Ugh" again.
 
 Blargh. And then "the ipad video UI doesn't match the Chrome
 which doesn't match the Firefox which doesn't match the Flash"
 
Actually, I think that's preferable as long as the UI matches (or rather, *is*) that of the user's associated video player program. One of the things I loathe most about the modern web is how choice of viewer application has been stolen from the end user and given to the content provider instead. I still blame YouTube for kicking off that awful trend. Although if you're actually creating, for example, some sort of multimedia thing where video is simply part of a bigger whole (Like the old Phillips CD-I stuff), then that's a completely different matter and UI then *does* belong under the control of the creator (aside from any matters of matching the local device's look-and-feel).
Jul 15 2013
next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 09:56:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Which means *every* time I want to open two or more file manager
 windows, I have fool this stupid fucking piece of shit NannyOS 
 into doing so, instead of you know, just clicking the damn 
 button however many times I need.
Yup. I've found you can get around it somewhat well by right clicking and open in new window from the parent directory. Still somewhat annoying - I think XP started the downhill trend, maybe even 2000, with changing the explorer around. I really liked it in Win95 - it just got the job done in a simple, straightforward way. That said though, I don't have too much trouble with the newer Windowses. I actually like Vista!
 Yup. So depressingly true. And what's really bizarre about it 
 is that a LOT of that JS is specifically in the name of speeding
 up the site ("Because you don't have to redownload *all* 1k of
 HTML on every link!")
Oh yeah, I have to deal with this a lot too. The big thing is even in ideal situations, an ajax request is likely about the same speed as a full refresh, since on most sites, it is dominated by request latency anyway! If it takes 50 ms for your signal to cross the internet and 5ms to generate the ajax and 10ms to generate the full page.... the whole ajax thing only saved you maybe 10% of the already very fast speed. (If your site takes longer than 50ms to load, I think you've gotta spend some time in the profiler regardless.) It just seems to be psychological, because sometimes the browser will white out the background or jump around the scrollbar while loading the full page, it feels more jarring. But they don't even always do that. Important to get this working though is to set the right cache headers on everything. And I betcha that's where people make mistakes. I like to cache those ajax answers too when I do have to use them, because killing the server round trip latency is a huge win.
 And what's the extra bonus for that pessimization? Broken 
 "back", broken "forward", broken bookmarking, and broken link 
 sharing.
But you see, this is why those FB share + tweet buttons are so important! Otherwise people will copy/paste the wrong link :< blargh.
 JS's bottleneck was never bandwidth.
Indeed, and this is one reason why I absolutely refuse to use jQuery. (The other being it isn't even significantly different than the built in DOM! IMO most of jquery is just pointless wrappers and name changes.) If you're using it from a CDN so the browser has cached bytecode (or whatever they do), you can get it reasonably quickly, about 10ms added if you reference it. ....but that's actually pretty rare. I don't remember the number, but there was a survey of web traffic that found a big percentage of users aren't cached. And if you are slow for first time users, how much you want to bet they'll just hit back, try the next guy's link, and never return? jQuery in file cache but not pre-compiled is brutally slow, something like 150ms on my laptop, on top of everything else it has to load. So the page is loaded, but it won't actually work until that pretty noticeable delay. (And then it still has to do whatever work you wanted jquery for in the first place! Since js is usually loaded sequentially, the other stuff has to wait for this to complete) It has some nice things in it, but just isn't worth making my site 5x slower than it would be without it.
 Floats are good for what they were originally intended for 
 (wrapping text around an image) and for nothing else.
Amen.
 Just so I can do as much as I can without putting up
 with a unified forward/back, browser skin, address bar with
 unicorn-rainbow-vomit Fisher-Price-sized text, or all that UI
 over-minimalism.
Let me show you what my firefox looks like: http://arsdnet.net/firefox.png I had to change a few settings to get it there, but I think this isn't too bad at all, and as you can see, it is a fairly new version. (I'm probably 10 versions behind again, it has been like three months!!!!! but meh.)
 And those minor annoyances have been more than made up for by 
 all the times I've banged my head against the wall over some 
 PITA HTML/CSS problem, then decided "fuck this shit, I'm using 
 tables" and
Eh, I haven't that that, at least not for a long time, but it could be because I know a lot of arcane css crap so it isn't a head banger anymore. Could also be that I'm given simpler designs too!
 Heh, I can't stand tiny TVs (I don't even like using portable 
 game systems).
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't like *big* tvs. Too much light, weird movement just looks wrong to my eyes, and watching them for a while hurts my brain, literally, I get headaches. Might not all be size itself, could be the high def, frame interpolation, lcd tech, whatever, but I just really prefer my old tvs. I have a 19" that I watch when I'm on the other side of the house (the room it is in is a long one, spanning the house's entire 30-some foot width) and a 13" one that is about 7 feet away from my computer desk that I watch a lot when sitting here. Both televisions are from the 80's, but they still work quite well so like Rick Astley, I'm never gonna give them up. Interestingly too, I had a PS3 briefly. I say briefly because the piece of shit died on my before I even owned it for two full months. Maybe that's what I get for getting a cheap one on ebay, but the new prices are just unacceptably high. Regardless, my playstation (one) was used too, and it still works. So was my super nintendo, etc. They all still work. I think they just don't make 'em like they used to. Anyway, playing the ps3 on my friend's 32 inch high def tv hurts me horribly. My eyes get tired after about an hour. I thought it was maybe just because I'm getting too old for this shit, but then I played the very same game at my house on my little tv and was able to go 5 hours before feeling tired. It still fucked me up - lost sleep (I played an FPS for a while and started having nightmares about shooting people in real life.... that never happened playing the NES), got sore, clearly I can't sit on the video games for 10 hours a day like I used to do, but I'm convinced there's something different about the new vs old tvs that affect me physically. My score tended to be better on the old tv too!
 And it really gets me how touchscreen devices are promoted with 
 the idealized concept of "touch" even though they *eliminate* 
 tactile sensation.
Yup. And it is too easy to accidentally hit "buttons" and not know it. I was watching the tour de france on the ipad yesterday when the puppy had to go outside. I carried it with me figuring I can still watch it... but apparently my shirt brushed up against the screen and it interpreted that as a swipe motion that turned off the live stream! Ugh! And there's other crap about the ipad too: changing the brightness means turning off the stream, slowly finding your way to settings, hitting that thing, sliding the bar up, then getting back to the video. So if I go outside and want to turn up the brightness, better hope no action happens in that next minute cuz I'll miss it. Contrast to a real keyboard, where you can just put that on a hotkey. Or hell, a multitasking OS where you could still play the commentary audio in the background at least while adjusting settings. And yesterday too, right at the finish line, it decided to pop up a MODAL DIALOG BOX saying "battery level has reached 10% [dismiss]"... and it stopped the video while it was up! So I'm like I DON'T CARE I JUST NEED ONE MORE MINUTE COME BACK COME BACK!!!!!! But by the time it did, the first place rider had already crossed. (Of course, they replayed the finish a couple minutes later, but still.) Anyway I could complain about the flaws in this thing all day long. But the bright side is that I can watch the sports on it, and there's a huge difference without the horribly repetitive commercials. The tour de france is like a 90 hour event, and I like to watch a good bulk of it. Now let me tell you, seeing the same dozen sponsor's commercials over and over and over again, every 15 minutes watching it on cable just kills the joy. But forking over $15 for their ipad app skips that crap. Totally worth it. (Especially since cable is $70 / month. Really, at that obscene price, do they even need commercials anymore to turn a profit? I canceled it in christmas 2011 and set up an antenna. I still get most the shows I watch over the air (higher quality too*) and can get the rest on the internet or the ipad thing, and much lower price.) * The new digital tv over the air signal looks great, even on my old tvs, compared to digital cable. Which kinda amazes me, but it does. I guess it has to do with cable compression. The problem is if you don't get a good signal, it is unwatchable. And when it gets hot and/or windy, my signal gets crappy. With the old analog tv, it was almost always watchable. Maybe fuzzy or ghosting picture, but watchable, even in imperfect weather. I think digital tv, maybe the PS3 too now that I'm thinking about it, are examples of where we're going toward more more more at the peak, more pixels, more channels, etc., while ignoring graceful degradation for an acceptable average. Yes, with a strong signal, 1080p might be great. But getting a black screen when the signal weakens sucks. I betcha if they broadcast a highly error resistant 480i (or whatever standard tv resolution used to be) on that same data stream, they could have gotten a much more reliable stream, giving a very consistent quality even in poor weather. But then how would they sell people new high def equipment every other year? Wow I'm getting off topic even for an off topic thread! Oh well.
 Actually, I think that's preferable as long as the UI matches 
 (or rather, *is*) that of the user's associated video player 
 program.
Yes, I like to use mplayer for things so I can skip and speed up easily. I don't like watching videos at normal speed (most the time), it just takes too long. With text, I can skim it for interesting parts. With video, I'd like to do the same but can't. Best I can do is play it at like 1.5x speed.... mplayer can do that. youtube/html5 (amazingly though, firefox apparently *can*)/flash generally can't. And mplayer takes like 1% cpu to play it. Flash takes like 110% cpu to do the same job. What trash.
Jul 15 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:23:39 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 I think XP started the downhill trend, maybe 
 even 2000, with changing the explorer around. I really liked it 
 in Win95 - it just got the job done in a simple, straightforward 
 way.
 
For me, XP was the peak of Windows and Vista started the consistent decline. I do like how from 2k on you can take a non-dual pane explorer window and make the treeview pane appear by just clicking one button. The "tasks" pane is useless, but you can easily make the treeview pane the default. OTOH, one of my biggest XP annoyances is that unlike Win7, XP doesn't *always* respect your "default to treeview instead of tasks pane" setting (ex: if you open a directory via an icon on the desktop).
 That said though, I don't have too much trouble with the newer 
 Windowses. I actually like Vista!
 
Heh, I tend to be kinda mixed on "Vista vs Win7". Win7 is a little less buggy (I'm actually trying to repair my mom's Vista machine even as I type this), but Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar replacement, or that infinitely obnoxious and never helpful "popup window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near the dock" (I went through soooo much trouble to finally get rid of those on my Win7 machine - which I would have already converted to an XP box if it wasn't a laptop.) Neither Vista nor 7 let me have my XP-style "all programs" menu without using the third party "Classic Shell" utility (which I *highly* recommend for any post-XP user - it's an essential part of making Win7 tolerable IMO.) I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't see what the big problem is, it's just a toolbar with better grouping and a better more varied set of UI controls. Win7's MS Paint is the best version by far. (not that that's saying a lot being MS paint, but it's always come in handy now and then.)
 Yup. So depressingly true. And what's really bizarre about it 
 is that a LOT of that JS is specifically in the name of speeding
 up the site ("Because you don't have to redownload *all* 1k of
 HTML on every link!")
Oh yeah, I have to deal with this a lot too. The big thing is even in ideal situations, an ajax request is likely about the same speed as a full refresh, since on most sites, it is dominated by request latency anyway! If it takes 50 ms for your signal to cross the internet and 5ms to generate the ajax and 10ms to generate the full page.... the whole ajax thing only saved you maybe 10% of the already very fast speed.
Exactly. And on top of that, most ajaxy sites will actually perform ajax requests *during initial page load*! That's so damn pointless. For god's sake, if something's supposed to show by default, then *just bake it into the page itself*! The only time JS *ever* needs to run upon page load is to undo any non-JS fallbacks.
 (If your site takes longer than 50ms to load, I think you've 
 gotta spend some time in the profiler regardless.)
 
I don't think anyone who uses Ajax ever does any profiling. (I'm not even being sarcastic. I really doubt that any more than maybe 0.1% of Ajax devs do even basic handheld-stopwatch profiling, especially on any browser that isn't V8.)
 
 Important to get this working though is to set the right cache 
 headers on everything. And I betcha that's where people make 
 mistakes. I like to cache those ajax answers too when I do have 
 to use them, because killing the server round trip latency is a 
 huge win.
 
Yea, it is easy (and frankly, very tempting!) to overlook HTTP cache settings.
 If you're using it from a CDN so the browser has cached bytecode 
 (or whatever they do), you can get it reasonably quickly, about 
 10ms added if you reference it.
 
 ....but that's actually pretty rare. I don't remember the number, 
 but there was a survey of web traffic that found a big percentage 
 of users aren't cached.
Interesting. I wonder why exactly that is.
 And if you are slow for first time users, 
 how much you want to bet they'll just hit back, try the next 
 guy's link, and never return?
 
Yup. Hell, I know *I* do that. Why go playing some random web developer's game of "set up your browser to be how I think it should be" when there's twenty other search hits I can just use instead?
 [JQuery] has some nice things in it, but just isn't worth making my 
 site 5x slower than it would be without it.
That's a pretty good summary of it.
 Just so I can do as much as I can without putting up
 with a unified forward/back, browser skin, address bar with
 unicorn-rainbow-vomit Fisher-Price-sized text, or all that UI
 over-minimalism.
Let me show you what my firefox looks like: http://arsdnet.net/firefox.png I had to change a few settings to get it there, but I think this isn't too bad at all, and as you can see, it is a fairly new version. (I'm probably 10 versions behind again, it has been like three months!!!!! but meh.)
Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF tends to have a better default UI (that is, matches the system better) than Windows FF anyway. The whole unified forward/back still annoys the hell out of me though (actually, that doesn't appear to even *have* the dropdown thing - another "modern FF" blunder), and so does the unified "stop/reload" (not that browser "stop" buttons have *ever* actually worked at all).
(I'm probably 10 versions behind again, it has been like 
 three months!!!!! but meh.)
Heh, yea, that's the whole Chrome-envy thing again. Everyone wants to be Chrome, even if their users use the browser because it *isn't* Chrome. Kinda like how MS is obsessively trying to be Apple even though 90% of desktops are Windows *because* Windows isn't Mac.
 Heh, I can't stand tiny TVs (I don't even like using portable 
 game systems).
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't like *big* tvs. Too much light, weird movement just looks wrong to my eyes, and watching them for a while hurts my brain, literally, I get headaches. Might not all be size itself, could be the high def, frame interpolation, lcd tech, whatever, but I just really prefer my old tvs.
TVs are another thing I could go on and on about. My XBox1 and Wii look great on my 30ish-inch SD CRT (especially XBox Doom3 - that looks like a freaking PS3 game), but using the exact same connectors they look like total shit on my sister's fancy new Samsung 1080p LCD. Blurry as hell no matter what the settings, and ghosts like crazy in any dark scenes. Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD? That's what the normally-great-looking Doom3 looks like on that "modern" HD LCD. The PS3, of course, looks much better on the HD LCD than an SD CRT (at least when HDMI is used). Although for most games it's not nearly as much of a difference as you'd think. Call of Duty Modern Warfare on PS3 looks pretty much equally fantastic either way. Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than resolution. Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried include text that's so damn *small* that's it's barely readable on even a 29" set *regardless* of resolution, and 29" *is* a perfectly respectable size. Gamedevs don't seem to realize that higher resolution doesn't make miniature text any bigger. They seem to think that everyone's playing on a fucking 45+" screen or sitting two feet away like they do during development. Or (like CliffyB) just don't give a shit about anyone who isn't just as much of a graphics whore and tech geek as they are.
 I have a 19" that I watch when I'm on the other side of 
 the house (the room it is in is a long one, spanning the house's 
 entire 30-some foot width) and a 13" one that is about 7 feet 
 away from my computer desk that I watch a lot when sitting here.
 
 Both televisions are from the 80's, but they still work quite 
 well so like Rick Astley, I'm never gonna give them up.
 
I would actually like to have a huge fancy HD set (provided I didn't have to pay much for it). *But* only in *addition* to my SD CRT (if I could find a way to actually fit them both in the living room). There's so much SD content out there that will never magically become HD (at least without requiring me to re-purchase the same damn stuff), and such things just look like absolute total shit on these supposedly great HD sets. It's no wonder so many people think HD is such an *enormous* improvement over SD - they've been brainwashed by their HD sets into thinking that SD is far far worse than what it *really* was. Really HD is only a moderate improvement if you compare it to a *real* SD set instead of "SD on an HD set".
 
 Interestingly too, I had a PS3 briefly. I say briefly because the 
 piece of shit died on my before I even owned it for two full 
 months.
Ouch. Usually it's the MS hardware that dies. And I don't just mean 360 red-rings. The Zune1 practically had an always-on self-destruct sequence. And I've had to do far more repairs to my XBox1 than my PS2 or GameCube (One bent controller port pin on my PS2, and no problems ever on the GC, but lots of issues on the XBox1 even though it's my favorite from that generation.)
 Maybe that's what I get for getting a cheap one on ebay, 
 but the new prices are just unacceptably high.
Yea, it's nearly EOL and the new price is *still* what a launch-day system should cost. There's a good chain of used-game/video stores out my way call The Exchange <http://theexchange.com/> which tend to be very good. Used PS3s there are only around $120-$150 depending on model and stock. I assume GameStop is probably similar, though I haven't looked. That's still high for a, what, 7-year-old system, but ultimately a decent buy all things considered. That's where mine is from and it's been working fine. The problem with buying hardware on ebay is that there's no middle party trying to prevent the buyer from ending up with a dud. (There's ebay itself, but they can't do as much as a brick-and-mortar trade shop can.) With ebay, unless there's a failure out-of-the-box then you're pretty much screwed. I've been bitten by that before, too.
 Regardless, my 
 playstation (one) was used too, and it still works. So was my 
 super nintendo, etc. They all still work. I think they just don't 
 make 'em like they used to.
Yup. 'Course, cartridge contacts wear out, and so do lasers, but still hardware is designed to be constantly replaced now and stuff just doesn't last. Especially smartphones - reliability on those is by far the worst. They're probably about on par with the older XBox 360 models.
 
 Anyway, playing the ps3 on my friend's 32 inch high def tv hurts 
 me horribly. My eyes get tired after about an hour. I thought it 
 was maybe just because I'm getting too old for this shit, but 
 then I played the very same game at my house on my little tv and 
 was able to go 5 hours before feeling tired. It still fucked me 
 up - lost sleep
That's strange. I wonder if maybe you're one of those people that's sensitive to the subtle flicker in backlights. Or maybe there's something about the lighting in the room that just doesn't mix well with the LCD, I've heard of that sort of issue before.
 And it really gets me how touchscreen devices are promoted with 
 the idealized concept of "touch" even though they *eliminate* 
 tactile sensation.
Yup. And it is too easy to accidentally hit "buttons" and not know it. I was watching the tour de france on the ipad yesterday when the puppy had to go outside. I carried it with me figuring I can still watch it... but apparently my shirt brushed up against the screen and it interpreted that as a swipe motion that turned off the live stream!
Yea, they need a "hold" switch like my portable music player has.
 Ugh! And there's other crap about the ipad too: changing the 
 brightness means turning off the stream, slowly finding your way 
 to settings, hitting that thing, sliding the bar up, then getting 
 back to the video.
 
I could go on forever about iOS goofiness.
Jul 15 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:26:51 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar
Worth noting you can turn that off: I have 7 on the laptop I'm on now and after a few settings changes, it is very similar to vista. To get a good taskbar you need to turn off the group similar windows function (which I hated when it was introduced in XP anyway). Your quick launch still keeps their place but that doesn't bug me like I thought it would, it is actually kinda nice.
 window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near
Oh yeah, that is annoying. I hate hover things in general. The worst of them is on websites. My bank website used to have hover menus right above the login thing... So I go to the address bar and type in my bank dot com. Then i move the mouse down toward the login form and click it.... but oops, on the way down, I hovered over the stupid menu, so now by click is redirecting me to some new site! AAAARGGGTHHHH! The taskbar thing is similarly annoying but at least it pops up above, so you are less likely to accidentally click it in transit. Though I have many times clicked one window then went up and clicked another window because it popped up. God I hate hover crap.
 I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't 
 see what the big problem is
It's different. I still haven't really figured out the new Paint UI. I don't think it sucks, but it does take some getting used to.
 Interesting. I wonder why exactly that is.
IIRC it was because a lot of browsers clear cache on close, or the cache expired too soon.
 Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF 
 tends to have a better default UI (that is, matches the system 
 better) than Windows FF anyway.
Yes, I agree. And even there, I had to do an about:config thing to kill the unified back/forward nonsense. On Windows, firefox can look ok by doing the same adjustments, but one thing that still annoys me is that there's a weird shadow thing behind the menu. It isn't too bad but just seems pointless.
 and so does the unified "stop/reload"
Oh yeah, that's annoying. But the keyboard is a bit better there, f5+esc are easy to hit and more reliable anyway.
 Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD?
lol I actually liked it because it was backlit! Ate through batteries like mad but it was usable in varied lighting conditions.
 Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than 
 resolution. Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried
 include text that's so damn *small* that's it's barely
 readable on even a 29" set
Yes, I can barely even read it on my friend's larger tv in the call of duty game (especially when we play split screen, no point even trying to read the score, 8, 3, and 11 all look the same to me at those sizes)
 Really HD is only a moderate improvement if you compare
 it to a *real* SD set instead of "SD on an HD set".
Aye. And even so, meh. I was called a troll a while ago because somebody on youtube did a cgi remake of some Star Trek 2 scenes, and I said my old VHS copy looked better. But it did. The cgi artist did a fine job, sure, but the original director and model makers did a *better* job and the VHS captured it just fine. (One thing I think the cgi artist missed was the deliberate angles and coloring choices the director made in the original movie, to get across the contrast of hero and villain. If you've seen the movie, you might remember what I mean - the Enterprise was often shot with bluer light and taller angles (if that's the right term), making it look more good and innocent, whereas the Reliant had low angles and redder lights to look menacing - a perfect fit for the scene. The cgi artist had bazillion polygons but didn't capture the same atmosphere. Then there were things that just looked silly, like cgi smoke. Bah, the original effects were kinda cheesy too but I bought them. Maybe thanks to the actors but still, my old tape looked fine whatever the reason.)
 That's strange. I wonder if maybe you're one of those people 
 that's sensitive to the subtle flicker in backlights.
Maybe, but the lcd computer screen doesn't bug me the same. idk.
Jul 16 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:22:46 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:26:51 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar
Worth noting you can turn that off: I have 7 on the laptop I'm on now and after a few settings changes, it is very similar to vista. To get a good taskbar you need to turn off the group similar windows function (which I hated when it was introduced in XP anyway).
Yea, I did actually manage to get my Win7 taskbar (and file explorer and start menu) into a fairly XP state (and I do actually like being able to manually rearrange the taskbar tasks now), but it took an enormous amount of obscure, and often third-party, hacks.
 Your quick launch still keeps their place but that doesn't bug me 
 like I thought it would, it is actually kinda nice.
 
Win7 doesn't even have quick launch unless you hack it back in. (Which I've done of course.) But MS sure as hell doesn't make "No I don't want your idiotic new UI ideas, just the kernel" easy.
 window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near
Oh yeah, that is annoying. I hate hover things in general.
Me too. :/
 The 
 worst of them is on websites. My bank website used to have hover 
 menus right above the login thing...
 
 So I go to the address bar and type in my bank dot com. Then i 
 move the mouse down toward the login form and click it.... but 
 oops, on the way down, I hovered over the stupid menu, so now by 
 click is redirecting me to some new site! AAAARGGGTHHHH!
 
Yea. Makes no sense to me how *all* menu bars *everywhere* work on a "click to open" concept, including the web browsers themselves, but then the entire web decided "No, we have to make menu bars operate on an incredibly inconvenient, distracting AND non-standard "hover" basis.
 God I hate hover crap.
 
My sentiments exactly :)
 I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't 
 see what the big problem is
It's different. I still haven't really figured out the new Paint UI. I don't think it sucks, but it does take some getting used to.
One useful tip to minimize clicking: You can switch between tabs^H^H^H^Hribbons with the mouse's scroll wheel. The occasional extra clicking to switch ribbons was probably the one thing I can understand people not liking about the ribbons.
 
 Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF 
 tends to have a better default UI (that is, matches the system 
 better) than Windows FF anyway.
Yes, I agree. And even there, I had to do an about:config thing to kill the unified back/forward nonsense.
THAT'S POSSIBLE?!? PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!! Or is the forward/back dropdown list still unified? That's the part that really bugs me.
 and so does the unified "stop/reload"
Oh yeah, that's annoying. But the keyboard is a bit better there, f5+esc are easy to hit and more reliable anyway.
Good tip, although my hand and mind are usually in mouse-mode when I'm on the web. I can understand the rationale for unified stop/reload: There's never a time when *both* make sense to use. No point in reloading while loading (gotta stop first), and makes so sense to stop when it's not loading. But that reasoning falls apart the first time you reach for "stop" and the damn thing changes to "reload" just before you click. I'll take them separate, thank you.
 Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD?
lol I actually liked it because it was backlit! Ate through batteries like mad but it was usable in varied lighting conditions.
And it was color! (One of my all-time favorite commercials is the old GameGear one where a kid is sitting outside playing a GameBoy, grabs a big thick fallen tree branch, clonks himself over the head with it, turns back to the game, and goes "Whoa! Color!") I had a GameGear. I liked it. It was even blurrier than GameBoy though. And you're right about the batteries. Shit, it went through them *six* at a time! I usually just used the power cord though.
 Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than 
 resolution. Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried
 include text that's so damn *small* that's it's barely
 readable on even a 29" set
Yes, I can barely even read it on my friend's larger tv in the call of duty game (especially when we play split screen, no point even trying to read the score, 8, 3, and 11 all look the same to me at those sizes)
I never played CoD multiplayer. But I have to give them *huge* credit for how (with the exception of multiplayer I guess, and maybe it's only the Modern Warfare series) there is *no* tiny text at all, unlike most PS3 games. It always perplexes me how so many PS3 games will have a big 'ol box or area for text, and then the text is so small that 90% of it is just margins and padding.
 
 Really HD is only a moderate improvement if you compare
 it to a *real* SD set instead of "SD on an HD set".
Aye. And even so, meh. I was called a troll a while ago because somebody on youtube did a cgi remake of some Star Trek 2 scenes, and I said my old VHS copy looked better.
lol! Of course normally, calling a youtube commenter a troll is kind of like calling a sasquatch "hairy". ;)
 But it did. The cgi artist did a fine job, sure, but the original 
 director and model makers did a *better* job and the VHS captured 
 it just fine. (One thing I think the cgi artist missed was the 
 deliberate angles and coloring choices the director made in the 
 original movie, to get across the contrast of hero and villain. 
 If you've seen the movie, you might remember what I mean - the 
 Enterprise was often shot with bluer light and taller angles (if 
 that's the right term), making it look more good and innocent, 
 whereas the Reliant had low angles and redder lights to look 
 menacing - a perfect fit for the scene. The cgi artist had 
 bazillion polygons but didn't capture the same atmosphere.
 
 Then there were things that just looked silly, like cgi smoke. 
 Bah, the original effects were kinda cheesy too but I bought 
 them. Maybe thanks to the actors but still, my old tape looked 
 fine whatever the reason.)
 
Yea, I'm actually not a fan of CG effects. *Sometimes* they work well (There's a giant compressed-air canister that breaks loose in "Gone in 60 Seconds" that I *never* would have guessed was CG.) But usually, even today, they lack the "realism" sense you get from more traditional effects. Some of my favorite visual effects are in Terry Gilliam's old early-80's movie "Time Bandits". It not exactly the best movie I've seen, but I love the visual effects. They have a certain "real, yet otherworldly" quality that you just don't get from CG. Actually, I'm not big on GC movies in general. I think cell-style just looks a lot better. Something about the smoothness of the animation in GC cartoons just doesn't look right (I've never figured out what exactly it is about it), and really takes away from the experience. (Although I am one of the few people who did like FF: Spirits Within...go figure.)
Jul 16 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 21:33:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 One useful tip to minimize clicking: You can switch between
 tabs^H^H^H^Hribbons with the mouse's scroll wheel.
cool, I'll have to try that.
 THAT'S POSSIBLE?!? PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!! Or is the forward/back
 dropdown list still unified? That's the part that really bugs 
 me.
I cannot for the life of me remember how. I'm looking at the user set about:config values and can't find it there either. But it is obviously still in force! The dropdowns are unified, but I searched for the thing and came across this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noun-buttons/ which claims to separate that too. idk if it is crap though. My general assumption with [s]add-ons[/s] [s]software[/s] most everyhing is that it is until proven otherwise, but maybe it will be good.
 But that reasoning falls apart the first time you reach for 
 "stop" and the damn thing changes to "reload" just before you 
 click.
Yeah, I've done that before.
 And it was color!
indeed. And nice bright colors too, going back to the backlight but just the palettes in a lot of the older games seemed so much brighter than they do nowadays.
 Of course normally, calling a youtube commenter a troll is kind 
 of like calling a sasquatch "hairy". ;)
hehehe
 (Although I am one of the few people who did like FF: Spirits
 Within...go figure.)
That's a film I feel that I should give another try. I watched it once a while ago and was meh, but that could be due to bias since I've heard a few people say it really wasn't that bad.
Jul 16 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 04:31:40 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 21:33:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 THAT'S POSSIBLE?!? PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!! Or is the forward/back
 dropdown list still unified? That's the part that really bugs 
 me.
I cannot for the life of me remember how. I'm looking at the user set about:config values and can't find it there either. But it is obviously still in force! The dropdowns are unified, but I searched for the thing and came across this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noun-buttons/ which claims to separate that too. idk if it is crap though. My general assumption with [s]add-ons[/s] [s]software[/s] most everyhing is that it is until proven otherwise, but maybe it will be good.
Ahh cool, last I checked that add-on was pretty much useless, but it looks like it finally got a major improvement last year. Hot damn! I think I actually managed to get FF *v22* to not suck! It was an absolute royal fucking PITA though. It's amazing how much new idiotic bullshit Mozilla manages to cram in and accumulate with every new release, and never with any clear way to disable. FF has more dumb shit to undo now than ever. But it seems to finally be possible, and the under-the-hood improvements do counteract the problem pf needing to load it down with so many more "undo Mozilla's latest brilliant idea" add-ons. I think I'm going to make a little article soon explaining how to do it all.
 And it was color!
indeed. And nice bright colors too, going back to the backlight but just the palettes in a lot of the older games seemed so much brighter than they do nowadays.
Haven't you heard? Real is brown!: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=222 The worst offender I've seen so far (of both the ultra-brown and the ultra-bloom) is Need for Speed: Undercover (at least the PS3 version anyway). It's somewhat of an older one though, and luckily Need for Speed visual styles have gotten a lot better since then.
 (Although I am one of the few people who did like FF: Spirits
 Within...go figure.)
That's a film I feel that I should give another try. I watched it once a while ago and was meh, but that could be due to bias since I've heard a few people say it really wasn't that bad.
It had a major audience problem: Gamers didn't like it because, aside from having a Cid, there was nothing Final Fantasy about it (kind of a strange complaint though, since at the time none of the FF games ever had anything to do with each other.) And non-gamers weren't into it because it was a movie that was (allegedly) based on a game, which is never a good sign. So it was disliked because it was based on Final Fantasy *and* because it *wasn't* based on Final Fantasy. Quite an unfortunate situation. Some of the animations were a little awkward sometimes, but considering the state-of-the-art at the time, I thought it was entirely forgivable. And hell, even if it had been crap, I'd still have loved it just because it was a CG movie that *wasn't* a cartoon (or a mix of live action with tons of obvious CG effects).
Jul 21 2013
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:23:39 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 (Especially since cable is $70 / month. Really, at that 
 obscene price, do they even need commercials anymore to turn a 
 profit? 
They're corporations. It's not about turning a profit. It's about being under a legal obligation to shareholders to extract *as much* money as possible. ('Course I think their current practices are *still* failing at that by running themselves into the ground.) The worst thing wasn't paying a huge bill to get commercial breaks. The worst thing was paying a huge bill to get commercials *overlaid* on top of the actual shows. That was the tipping point for me. Plus the fact that there's no longer anything on cable that *isn't* a reality show. Even Food Network is pretty much 100% reality shows these days.
 canceled it in christmas 2011 and set up an antenna. I 
 still get most the shows I watch over the air
Yea, we got rid of cable about a year ago and haven't regretted it (Well, except I do genuinely miss that two-month free trial of NHK they once gave us. I didn't understand most of the talking, I'm not fluent, but it still became my favorite channel. I watched it far too much.) Honestly, I don't even watch over-the-air anymore anyway. If my digital converter box stopped working, I probably wouldn't notice. All I ever use my TV for is videogames and DVDs (usually anime) from the library. And sometimes netflix, but they keep making their PS3 UI worse and worse, and they're crap for anime anyway (netflix never does dual-audio tracks for anime).
 (higher quality too*)
 * The new digital tv over the air signal looks great, even on my 
 old tvs, compared to digital cable. Which kinda amazes me, but it 
 does. I guess it has to do with cable compression. The problem is 
 if you don't get a good signal, it is unwatchable. And when it 
 gets hot and/or windy, my signal gets crappy.
Yea, I absolutely couldn't believe how horrible cable's video quality suddenly became a couple years ago. I genuinely suspect that it may actually be MPEG 1, it really is that bad. And the A/V sync is almost always botched. And even after a replacement, the settop box's interface will would go completely unresponsive for up to a full minute at a time. Completely worthless service at any price.
 
 With the old analog tv, it was almost always watchable. Maybe 
 fuzzy or ghosting picture, but watchable, even in imperfect 
 weather.
 
Yea. Over-the-air digital is a bad deal. With OTA, there's *always* going to be periods of significant interference. And analog signals degrade *far* better with decreasing signal quality than digital signals do. And digital signals require a much stronger signal in the first place (Both my dad and grandmother went from plenty of channels to nearly no channels after the digital switch until they shelled out for ultra fancy new antennas). It was a questionable tradeoff at best.
 I think digital tv, maybe the PS3 too now that I'm thinking about 
 it, are examples of where we're going toward more more more at 
 the peak, more pixels, more channels, etc., while ignoring 
 graceful degradation for an acceptable average.
 
Yea.
 Yes, with a strong signal, 1080p might be great. But getting a 
 black screen when the signal weakens sucks.
Or that awful digital "stutter". Analog interference is perfectly watchable and listenable. Digital interference (ie, the stuttering) just simply isn't.
I betcha if they 
 broadcast a highly error resistant 480i (or whatever standard tv 
 resolution used to be)
Yea, for NTSC it's basically 480i. Slightly more for PAL (520i?) at the cost of a few less frames per second.
 on that same data stream, they could have 
 gotten a much more reliable stream, giving a very consistent 
 quality even in poor weather.
 
Yea, I'm sure there's a lot they could have done. NTSC/PAL were invented how long ago? And look at what they've been able to do with cellular signals since then. Obviously the different operating frequencies make a HUGE difference in how much can be done, but if they were going to redo the protocol, I'm sure they could have done something far better than the non-degradable new system we ended up with.
 But then how would they sell people new high def equipment every 
 other year?
 
Same way cell phone industry does it. Make the quality of the design and manufacturing bad enough that they break down in around a year. ;)
 
 Wow I'm getting off topic even for an off topic thread! Oh well.
 
I'm probably becoming famous for that ;)
 Actually, I think that's preferable as long as the UI matches 
 (or rather, *is*) that of the user's associated video player 
 program.
Yes, I like to use mplayer for things so I can skip and speed up easily. I don't like watching videos at normal speed (most the time), it just takes too long. With text, I can skim it for interesting parts. With video, I'd like to do the same but can't. Best I can do is play it at like 1.5x speed.... mplayer can do that.
So does PS3 I was surprised to discover. That may come in handy. For PC, I use Media Player Classic Home Cinema. I only wish it supported Linux :(
 And mplayer takes like 1% cpu to play it. Flash takes like 110% 
 cpu to do the same job. What trash.
Yea, Flash makes JS seem fast. Adobe never should have ventured outside of media production tools and into developer tools. It's clearly not within their area of expertise.
Jul 15 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:28:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 They're corporations. It's not about turning a profit. It's 
 about being under a legal obligation to shareholders to extract
 *as much* money as possible.
Indeed. But at this rate, they're not even staying competitive with their corporate alternatives. The cable company will have to shape up or accept defeat, but nope, they keep raising their rates. Maybe they're just milking what they can. And yeah, I agree with the sad state of tv. A lot of what I watch are actually reruns but there's a lot I like about regular tv over dvds: the cost (which was a pure loss with cable, but a win with over the air), the variety, and actually I kinda like commercials because they give me a chance to get up. Yes, I could pause a dvd whenever, and change the discs for variety, but eh the regular tv is nice and mindless.
 (usually anime)
Sailor Moon rocks btw!
 Or that awful digital "stutter".
Ugh, yeah. It is beautiful with a good signal, but just awful otherwise.
 were going to redo the protocol, I'm sure they could have done
 something far better than the non-degradable new system we 
 ended up with.
Yeah, my thought is at least they could interlace the frames, using the same signal they have now, just changing it from a high res compressed stream to a lower res, redundant and error-correction supporting stream. So it sends frames like: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 well that's confusing looking, but the idea is if the resolution is like 1/4 the size, we should be able to send each frame 4 times in the same digital signal. So then if your connection cut out and you lost a frame, it is ok because you'll have another chance to pick it up 50ms later. So if you then have a small like 16 frame buffer in the box you could pick up almost a second to recover a frame and piece it together from its sub-frame checksumed chunks as it is rebroadcast, to give the user a smooth picture. Or something like that, I'm not a signal expert nor a reliability engineer, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible.
Jul 16 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:35:47 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:28:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 They're corporations. It's not about turning a profit. It's 
 about being under a legal obligation to shareholders to extract
 *as much* money as possible.
Indeed. But at this rate, they're not even staying competitive with their corporate alternatives. The cable company will have to shape up or accept defeat, but nope, they keep raising their rates. Maybe they're just milking what they can.
Yea. While they're desperately trying to hoard money...they're just doing it very stupidly ;) The action of "squeezing sand" comes to mind.
 And yeah, I agree with the sad state of tv. A lot of what I watch 
 are actually reruns but there's a lot I like about regular tv 
 over dvds: the cost (which was a pure loss with cable, but a win 
 with over the air), the variety, and actually I kinda like 
 commercials because they give me a chance to get up. Yes, I could 
 pause a dvd whenever, and change the discs for variety, but eh 
 the regular tv is nice and mindless.
 
PUO's do piss me off. I wish I could find a (likely of sketchy pedigree) player that would let me disable PUOs so I wouldn't have to waste a DVD+/-R (and often downsample to single-layer) just to get rid of them (well, I *think* Media Player Classic *might* be able to, but I mean a proper set-top player). It's kinda weird how it's easier to find a regionless player, or a player with a hidden regionless setting, than one with a way to kill PUOs. (Not that I like region coding any better.)
 (usually anime)
Sailor Moon rocks btw!
Maybe I just haven't seen far enough through, but I always thought it was weird how it seemed like every episode Tuxedo Mask would end up having to come save her sorry ass. :) Pretty Cure isn't bad either as a slightly later "Magic Girl" show, at least the sub version anyway. The fighting is standard generic stuff, but aside from that it's just very cute. Actually, there was a fantastic GBA game based on it, which is what originally drew my attention to the series: "Futari wa PreCure: Arienaii: Yume no sono wa dai...something" Umm I forget the rest of the name, but it's a side-scrolling platform puzzle game with a "co-op but only one-player" concept. Quite brilliant IMO. A shame it never had a western release. It is interesting though, how compared to live action stuff and most western works in general, animes/mangas tend to have much broader demographic appeal beyond just the "core" audience for a given work. For example, While there's certainly some good Seinen I like (like Cowboy Bebop, Death Note, and Ghost in the Shell, as far as the really obvious examples go), there's also been a bunch of Shojo that's managed to really hook me: Kodocha, Marmalade Boy (the manga, haven't seen the anime), Clamp's Suki Dakara Suki, and some others. And that's not an uncommon phenomenon at all. ('Course, then there's other great ones that I'm not really even sure what category they'd *technically* fall under: Like FullMetal Alchemist and K-On.)
 were going to redo the protocol, I'm sure they could have done
 something far better than the non-degradable new system we 
 ended up with.
Yeah, my thought is at least they could interlace the frames, using the same signal they have now, just changing it from a high res compressed stream to a lower res, redundant and error-correction supporting stream. So it sends frames like: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 well that's confusing looking, but the idea is if the resolution is like 1/4 the size, we should be able to send each frame 4 times in the same digital signal. So then if your connection cut out and you lost a frame, it is ok because you'll have another chance to pick it up 50ms later. So if you then have a small like 16 frame buffer in the box you could pick up almost a second to recover a frame and piece it together from its sub-frame checksumed chunks as it is rebroadcast, to give the user a smooth picture. Or something like that, I'm not a signal expert nor a reliability engineer, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible.
I was initially thinking along the lines of "there's gotta be a way these days to make a better analog format than NTSC/PAL", but yea, that certainly sounds like a direction to pursue as well. And frankly I barely know shit about analog EM signals, so I could be wrong about that part anyway.
Jul 19 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 09:56:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I use SRWare Iron in place of Chrome (as I said, it literally is
 Chrome), but if you have to put up with Chrome's "bug of the 
 day" junk
 then yea I guess that wouldn't work. Although at that point I 
 would
 reach for VirtualBox. If I ever have to run the real Chrome, 
 it's
 getting its ass sandboxed.
I agree with much of what you say about how the web is broken, though I don't understand your disdain for Chrome, but there's absolutely no reason to use Iron. I analyzed its source a couple years back and it's basically a scam: http://web.archive.org/web/20120331155237/http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam You're getting delayed Chrome source with a different theme. There's almost no difference, other than being exposed to security bugs longer, which are patched in Chrome's constant releases.
Jul 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:47:45 +0200
"Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> wrote:

 On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 09:56:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I use SRWare Iron in place of Chrome (as I said, it literally is
 Chrome), but if you have to put up with Chrome's "bug of the 
 day" junk
 then yea I guess that wouldn't work. Although at that point I 
 would
 reach for VirtualBox. If I ever have to run the real Chrome, 
 it's
 getting its ass sandboxed.
I agree with much of what you say about how the web is broken, though I don't understand your disdain for Chrome, but there's absolutely no reason to use Iron. I analyzed its source a couple years back and it's basically a scam: http://web.archive.org/web/20120331155237/http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam You're getting delayed Chrome source with a different theme. There's almost no difference, other than being exposed to security bugs longer, which are patched in Chrome's constant releases.
I really have had problems with Chrome (and other Google software) forcefully installing always-resident processes before, and giving me trouble getting rid of it. Never had such a problem with Iron. Even if Iron is just a few better defaults and some options I don't even want anyway removed, that certainly doesn't qualify as a "scam". Hell, Iron's website is already perfectly clear about the settings existing in Chrome but being forced to a specific setting in Iron: <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> The article makes it sound like SRWare is being deliberately deceptive, which is verifiably untrue. Plus Chrome introduces bugs almost as much as it fixes them, so less frequent releases doesn't really bother me. And I wouldn't be using Chrome's auto-updater anyway (and if I did, I would only do it in a VM). Iron may not be a big change, but it's proven itself to me in real-world usage to still be worthwhile. And that archived article seems pretty biased. Ex: "...likely only to evade source analysis like I'm doing..." Uhh, accusational and speculative anyone? Especially since it's perfectly reasonable to figure the different version numbers could have more to do with divergent forks than actually "Iron deliberately changed the version number to be sneaky". Perfectly likely that Iron had merged in v4.x, then merged in various other changes, and just missed a line diff involving the v4->v5 version number change. But no, we're supposed to just *assume* it was intentional deception because that better supports the initial "Iron is a scam" position.
Jul 15 2013
parent reply "Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 01:09:18 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I really have had problems with Chrome (and other Google 
 software)
 forcefully installing always-resident processes before, and 
 giving me
 trouble getting rid of it. Never had such a problem with Iron.
Chrome, which is based on the open-source Chromium project, has a built-in auto-updater which always stays resident and checks for updates. Since Iron is based on Chromium, not Chrome, it may not have the auto-updater.
 Even if
 Iron is just a few better defaults and some options I don't 
 even want
 anyway removed, that certainly doesn't qualify as a "scam". 
 Hell,
 Iron's website is already perfectly clear about the settings 
 existing
 in Chrome but being forced to a specific setting in Iron:
 <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> 
 The
 article makes it sound like SRWare is being deliberately 
 deceptive,
 which is verifiably untrue.
Iron has always billed itself as some sort of privacy fork. For example, their FAQ says: "Can't i just use an precompiled unchanged Chromium-Build from the Google Server? This is not useful because the original Chromium-Builds have nearly the same functions inside than the original Chrome. We can only provide Iron because we massively modified the source." http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_faq.php I verified that this is untrue in the linked article, at least back when they released Iron 3 and 4. Nobody can verify it anymore, because even though there are still links for source download, they don't work, ie you can't download the source. This probably breaks the LGPL license, but I've read that they stopped providing source a while back, likely after I analyzed it: http://www.insanitybit.com/2012/06/23/srware-iron-browser-a-real-private-alternative-to-chrome-21/
 Plus Chrome introduces bugs almost as much as it fixes them, so 
 less
 frequent releases doesn't really bother me. And I wouldn't be 
 using
 Chrome's auto-updater anyway (and if I did, I would only do it 
 in a VM).
I don't track Iron closely, but I think they follow the same release schedule for major stable releases, only delayed, and likely without all the smaller point releases with security fixes that Chrome provides. So you have all the disadvantages of google's six-week release schedule, with the added disadvantages of Iron's delays and omissions: I don't see the benefit. Chrome does introduce some bugs as it updates, but I don't think any other browser is any better. I don't get your paranoia about the auto-updater: what makes you think it does anything other than check for updates? My understanding is that the source for the updater is available.
 Iron may not be a big change, but it's proven itself to me in
 real-world usage to still be worthwhile.
There is one advantage to Iron: it provides occasional builds of the stable branch of Chromium, which google does not provide except as part of the Chrome Stable channel. You could build the stable branch of Chromium yourself, but I understand if you don't want to put in the effort. I suspect you would be as happy with the Chromium builds that are provided, which are only from the trunk branch: http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-snapshots/index.html
 And that archived article seems pretty biased. Ex: "...likely 
 only to
 evade source analysis like I'm doing..." Uhh, accusational and
 speculative anyone? Especially since it's perfectly reasonable 
 to
 figure the different version numbers could have more to do with
 divergent forks than actually "Iron deliberately changed the 
 version
 number to be sneaky". Perfectly likely that Iron had merged in 
 v4.x,
 then merged in various other changes, and just missed a line 
 diff
 involving the v4->v5 version number change. But no, we're 
 supposed to
 just *assume* it was intentional deception because that better 
 supports
 the initial "Iron is a scam" position.
The reason it's intentional deception is because I analyzed the Iron source, which certainly doesn't "massively modify the source" for Chromium, as they claim. I made a guess that they chose to go in and change the version number to evade such analysis, which fits the pattern of deception. I didn't get into all this in the article, but they've never had a public source code repo, which is suspicious for someone who claims to be "open source." They were dumping code in 7z archives on rapidshare instead! Without a repo where I could track commits, I had to download the Iron source then manually track down which version of Chromium corresponded to that version of Iron, since the version number was changed. That took time, and given their pattern of deception, I can only assume it was a deliberate move to throw off such analysis. I understand your suspicion of google. I don't use their services other than search and have never signed up for facebook either, but that's no reason to use shady software just because it's "not google." There are real privacy concerns with all these services, but if we don't stick to the facts, we damage our case. I don't like what the Iron guy did and have documented the issues, it is up to you and others to decide what to believe.
Jul 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:28:35 +0200
"Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> wrote:
 
 I don't get your paranoia about the auto-updater:
Paranoia has nothing to do with it. I don't want it always running in the background, I don't want it auto-updating, and I certainly don't want a program installing an always running service I never asked it to install in the first place.
what makes you think it does anything other than check for updates? 
I never said it did.
 I understand your suspicion of google.  I don't use their 
 services other than search and have never signed up for facebook 
 either, but that's no reason to use shady software just because 
 it's "not google."  There are real privacy concerns with all 
 these services, but if we don't stick to the facts, we damage our 
 case.  I don't like what the Iron guy did and have documented the 
 issues, it is up to you and others to decide what to believe.
"Because it isn't Google" has nothing to do with my usage of Iron. I use it because I've had problems with Chrome that I haven't had with Iron. And if I don't have to go through the bother of configuring those settings in the first place and making sure to get Chromium instead of Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google have two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs Chromium" bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.) I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's creator is or how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because it works the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't. Honestly, I don't get all the FUD about Iron. A lot of stuff uses ad-supported models, big freaking deal, welcome to the web. There's no malware and no money charged, so there's clearly no "scam". Maybe some stuff is overstated, but try finding a "legit" corporation that doesn't twist and spin facts in their marketing. Not that I like that, but it just means that SRWare is no more of a scam than Johnson & Johnson, or General Mills or whatever. It all just sounds like a big overreaction to a tool that just simply isn't *as* large of an improvement as it makes itself out to be (which again, is a pretty common thing). Overstatements or not, worries about him being some sort of "sellout" or not (it's not as if Google is there for pure altruism instead of trying to make a buck either), regardless of any of that it's a useful Chromium distro.
Jul 16 2013
parent reply "Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 09:02:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google 
 have
 two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs 
 Chromium"
 bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.)
Chromium is an open source project. Chrome is google's build of Chromium, with some additional proprietary bits added, like a closed-source pdf viewer or licensed audio/video codecs compiled in: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome They use a hybrid model with Chrome, where it's 99% open with added proprietary bits, a subject I've talked about before on this NG.
 I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's 
 creator is or
 how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because 
 it works
 the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't.
You are free to use whatever you want, but when you say you don't care about what this guy has done, you lose all credibility on privacy and security.
 Honestly, I don't get all the FUD about Iron. A lot of stuff 
 uses
 ad-supported models, big freaking deal, welcome to the web. 
 There's no
 malware and no money charged, so there's clearly no "scam". 
 Maybe some
 stuff is overstated, but try finding a "legit" corporation that 
 doesn't
 twist and spin facts in their marketing. Not that I like that, 
 but it
 just means that SRWare is no more of a scam than Johnson & 
 Johnson, or
 General Mills or whatever. It all just sounds like a big 
 overreaction
 to a tool that just simply isn't *as* large of an improvement 
 as it
 makes itself out to be (which again, is a pretty common thing).
 Overstatements or not, worries about him being some sort of 
 "sellout"
 or not (it's not as if Google is there for pure altruism 
 instead of
 trying to make a buck either), regardless of any of that it's a 
 useful
 Chromium distro.
Haha, now outright lying about how you "massively modified the source" or that you're still "open source" is merely overblown "marketing?" You're twisting yourself into pretzels to try and justify this choice. Maybe you didn't know all this about Iron before, but it seems like an irrational, personal attachment to keep using and defending this browser after all this.
Jul 16 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:11:21 +0200
"Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> wrote:

 On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 09:02:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google 
 have
 two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs 
 Chromium"
 bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.)
Chromium is an open source project. Chrome is google's build of Chromium, with some additional proprietary bits added, like a closed-source pdf viewer or licensed audio/video codecs compiled in: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome They use a hybrid model with Chrome, where it's 99% open with added proprietary bits, a subject I've talked about before on this NG.
Ok, good to know. I do still think they could have handled it without splitting it into two barely-different projects. And from what I'm seen, Google gives off a very strong impression that "Chrome" is their browser for end-users to actually use, and "Chromium" is just...some..."thing" for developers (from what I've seen, Google hasn't been particularly clear on it, ever even really say much about it at all on their Chrome site, but I do appreciate your clarification). So if someone came along with a "basically Chrome with some stuff removed" that's *really* just minor tweaks on Chromium, then I do think Google kind of brought that situation on themselves. And I don't think it's necessarily bad, either. Yes, it would be better if SRWare was more accurate in stating what Iron exactly is, but still, a prebuilt distro of Chromium, without the lack of clarity on what Chromium is, and with default settings changed to what a lot of people would change them to anyway - I do think there is genuine value in that. Of course, Google could easily counteract that value by saying right there on their Chrome site "Ok, and here we also have a pre-built Chromium which is Chrome but without the auto-updater and non-OSS bits, etc". Or better yet: "Here's the Chrome installer, and it lets you choose whether or not to install the auto-updater, and whether or not to include the non-OSS extensions, and has an option for "ultra privacy" defaults where none of the controversial settings are enabled and nothing is ever implicitly sent to Google" (Obviously wording can be adjusted). But last I looked, Google didn't have anything like that, but Iron does, so there's value in it.
 I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's 
 creator is or
 how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because 
 it works
 the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't.
You are free to use whatever you want, but when you say you don't care about what this guy has done, you lose all credibility on privacy and security.
Not that I'm trying to change your mind here, but what I'm seeing here is: Some guy created a useful product (even if it is only minimally useful) because he wanted to generate ad revenue. There's nothing questionable or even remotely uncommon about that.
 Haha, now outright lying about how you "massively modified the 
 source" or that you're still "open source" is merely overblown 
 "marketing?"
 
"Massively" is a highly subjective term. Now I agree with you that if the changes are indeed what your articles say (and I'm not doubting that) than that doesn't match what I, or most people, would consider "massively". But it *is* a subjective term and business *do* exploit that all the time. I don't like that they do, I wish they didn't, but we don't go calling every such thing a "scam". As far as the "open source" thing, well if the source really is closed off now (and not just some site snafu or something) then yea, that is a license violation and needs to be changed. And proper public VCS would be good, although I've seen a LOT of developers who are still stuck in pre-VCS mode and unfortunately don't really "get" the whole GitHub thing. Not an ideal way for Iron to work, but since I'm only interested in using it, not building or modifying it, then it's not a deal-breaker for me. There's a lot of useful freeware that, for some ridiculous reason I've never understood, was closed-source. 'Course, most of those aren't license-bound to *be* OSS.
 You're twisting yourself into pretzels to try and justify this 
 choice.  Maybe you didn't know all this about Iron before, but it 
 seems like an irrational, personal attachment to keep using and 
 defending this browser after all this.
Just because I'm not knee-jerking at some new information (that really isn't anywhere near as condemning as you make it out to be) hardly qualifies as "twisting...irrational, personal attachment", etc.
Jul 16 2013
prev sibling parent "Michael" <pr m1xa.com> writes:
New Opera uses chromium engine, so I don't know (like user agent 
detection tools too) it's still the same Opera or not ;)
IE11 maybe masks like Mozilla/gecko too (according to html 5).

Often os virtualization tools used with desktop integration (one 
desktop - two os; VirtualBox VMware etc).


I think that viewers number is representative only. OS number 
means that this platform should be supported.
Jul 14 2013
prev sibling parent "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 15:00:43 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 I had some free time so I decided I should start a simple blog 
 about D, implementing some unix utilities. I've 
 (unsurprisingly) started with echo.

 http://foreach-hour-life.blogspot.co.uk/

 It's nothing ground-breaking, but every little helps :)
Turns out it got posted by some people on here: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Developer-Break-Nokla-Imaging-Perforce-QML-REST-AWS-SDKs-1916580.html and here: http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Developer-Snapshots-Programmierer-News-in-ein-zwei-Saetzen-1916317.html which has created a rather large bump in viewers :) Second instalment is coming soon.
Jul 15 2013