From: sabrina downard Date: 17:16 on 20 Jun 2006 Subject: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses failing to block pop-unders *that play sounds at me*. at least if they're silent i won't be bothered by them until all my memory's used up and firefox is using 70% of my cpu! freshly off of "where the hell is that *noise* coming from because i'm pretty sure i don't recall there being any 'Beavis and Butt-head' dialogue in this song," --s.
From: Bill Page Date: 17:18 on 20 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses "off of" = eww On 6/21/06, sabrina downard <viv@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > failing to block pop-unders *that play sounds at me*. at least if > they're silent i won't be bothered by them until all my memory's used > up and firefox is using 70% of my cpu! > > freshly off of "where the hell is that *noise* coming from because i'm > pretty sure i don't recall there being any 'Beavis and Butt-head' > dialogue in this song," > --s. >
From: jrodman Date: 17:27 on 20 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:16:25AM -0500, sabrina downard wrote: > failing to block pop-unders *that play sounds at me*. at least if > they're silent i won't be bothered by them until all my memory's used > up and firefox is using 70% of my cpu! > > freshly off of "where the hell is that *noise* coming from because i'm > pretty sure i don't recall there being any 'Beavis and Butt-head' > dialogue in this song," The whole idea of a browser producing unprovoked noise in any situation is hate, from where I sit. If I actively click on some dumb flash thing and it makes noise, okay, I deserve what I get. But burbling and babbling sound out of the speakers just because a URL is loaded? Hello design flaw. -josh
From: Eli Naeher Date: 04:53 on 21 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses So much Firefox hate I don't know where to start. Actually, yes, I do. With the input focus, which is broken in different ways on every single copy of Firefox for Linux that I've used. The precise strain of breakage varies from version to version, and also, apparently, with the phase of the moon and whether you feeling lucky. So when Firefox suddenly decides not to let you get focus on anything, you've got to try to remember: is this the box where I can just move focus to another window and back to fix it? Or is this the one where I've got to type adsfasdf in the address bar and then click on the page body? Or the one where I've got to hit escape after typing ' or / in a text box because Firefox has decided that means it should open a "Find Text As You Type" box, input focus be damned? Or maybe the one where I've got to sacrifice a virgin and chant the GPL in its entirety, backwords, in Basque? On my machine at work, Firefox is unusable because it becomes impossible to gain focus anywhere in the application -- on the page, in the address bar, on a menu -- if I open more than one window. Close all but one and it starts working again. I could use tabs, but I hate tabs, because they steal vertical space and I've already got enough crap cluttering up the top of my browser window, and anyway I run a civili^H^H^H^H^H^H marginally-less-hateful-than-average window manager which makes application-level tabs redundant. So I can't use Firefox for anything except viewing one site at a time in one window. So I use Epiphany. Being built on top of Gecko, it too is possessed of demented focus issues, but at least it seems to be able to fairly reliably snap out of it when I enter text in the address bar. And so all was well, until last week, when it started giving me "DCOM gurgle CORBA wheeze Can't open socket moan" errors on load, and then proceeding to start without the menu, toolbar, or address bar. (Ctrl-L will make it appear, ephemerally, until I enter a URL, at which point it goes away again). I also, since last week, have to click through three or four modal Gnome "Can't open socket" error dialogs if I hit Ctrl+F to open a search box. [1] I have vague memories of being able to fix a similar problem in the past, by killing gconfd-2 -- or was it gconfd-1? isn't it grand to live in an era where the importance of using informative names for things is so universally recognized? -- or possibly by removing some files and/or sockets buried somewhere under /tmp, or maybe some combination of the above -- but dammit, I don't want to have to know that much about Gnome, I just want a goddamned browser that works. 1. Epiphany, I believe, is the "minimal" Gnome browser [2], forked by parties who felt that Galeon was too bloated. "Minimal," to me, seems at odds with "has to open a new socket to render a Find In Page dialog," but what do I know. 2. Remeber when Firefox was Phoenix? And it was supposed to be the "minimal" version of Mozilla? Which was the supposed to be a stripped-down interface to Netscape Communicator's rendering engine? Does "minimal" now mean "does not require liquid coolant to run?"
From: Daniel Pittman
Date: 05:52 on 21 Jun 2006
Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses
"Eli Naeher" <enaeher@xxxxx.xxx> writes:
> So much Firefox hate I don't know where to start.
>
> Actually, yes, I do. With the input focus, which is broken in
> different ways on every single copy of Firefox for Linux that I've
> used.
I hate Firefox as well. I especially hate the wonderful way it manages
the URL input field, so that my typical startup process for it runs:
Click the firefox icon and wait far too long for the window to appear.
Start entering the URL of the site I want to test in the wretched thing.
Curse because it rendered the google startup page half way through,
causing half my URL to end up in the google search field and the other
half to be overwritten with the URL of the google page.
Thanks, Firefox, for that particular joy and wonder.
At least I can use Opera for my day to day browsing, which just works,
because they didn't try to develop their own crappy GUI toolkit with a
crappy implementation of half of Windows and half of Linux inside it.
I hate the fact that Opera isn't easy to get inside in a meaningful way,
though, so that I can't have it sanely ignore cookies unless I tell it
otherwise for a particular site.
I hate the way that it manages to have a crappy graphical skin interface
wrapped on top of Qt, so that it renders in a slightly broken fashion on
all platforms.
I really hate the way their newest release has *another* time and
resource wasting eye-candy device that allows me to put a stupid little
HTML and JavaScript based widget on my desktop.
Hate, hate, hate!
Daniel
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 09:47 on 21 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses * Eli Naeher <enaeher@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-06-21 05:55]: > I could use tabs, but I hate tabs, because they steal vertical > space and I've already got enough crap cluttering up the top of > my browser window, and anyway I run a civili^H^H^H^H^H^H > marginally-less-hateful-than-average window manager which makes > application-level tabs redundant. So I can't use Firefox for > anything except viewing one site at a time in one window. Sounds like your window manager is more hateful than you think. The WM is what's responsible for focus on X11, and ever since a couple of focus bugs were smoked out of the one I use, quite a while ago, I haven't had any such problems with Firefox. * Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-06-21 06:55]: > Curse because it rendered the google startup page half way > through, causing half my URL to end up in the google search > field and the other half to be overwritten with the URL of the > google page. You hate on the browser factory setting despite the fact that it takes about 10 seconds to change it? It's been "about:blank" in all my browsers since the days of Windows 95 lore. Regards,
From: Daniel Pittman Date: 09:58 on 21 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> writes: [...] > * Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-06-21 06:55]: >> Curse because it rendered the google startup page half way >> through, causing half my URL to end up in the google search >> field and the other half to be overwritten with the URL of the >> google page. > > You hate on the browser factory setting despite the fact that it takes > about 10 seconds to change it? It's been "about:blank" in all my > browsers since the days of Windows 95 lore. No. I hate the fact that Firefox will come up, allow me to edit a field, then change the input focus and replace what I wrote. If Firefox allows me to start entering text into a field I expect it to continue that. Having my input focus whipped around to another field is bad enough; removing what I had already entered into my original field is just annoying. I may be able to work around this by selecting a homepage that is faster to load than the default, network homed, page -- but that doesn't fix the problem. The focus issue is still there. The evil, hateful focus issue that changes what I am doing *without* notice to me, because some unrelated process has completed. This is the same hate that the multitude of Windows applications generate when they pop up a nice modal dialog right in the middle of the screen to tell me something exciting: I was working there, dammit, and you interrupted me. The thing that makes the Firefox version of this really, truly hateful is that it is all inside Firefox. Nothing outside it, nothing fancy added on to the package, just what ships in the box. I don't, frankly, care what the default page it opens is, or where it comes from. That doesn't actually fit into the picture, even. Heck, if you really want hate, here you go: - go to your running Firefox - enter a URL for a new website that will take a little while to load (I used www.microsoft.com, but anything not in the cache should do.) - hit enter to start it loading - type something else into the URL field - wait for Firefox to replace what you typed with the original URL Thanks, Firefox, that was nice. I really appreciate your replacing my data input with something else, and moving the input focus. It makes my life complete. See: all hate, no stupid homepage changes needed. Happy now? Daniel
From: Massimo DZ8 Date: 08:17 on 21 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses --=-fqvYWHMjWgPy91JvFD1c Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings to list members (I'm new)! Il giorno mar, 20/06/2006 alle 22.53 -0500, Eli Naeher ha scritto: > ...So when Firefox suddenly decides not to let you get > focus on anything... I find amazing how those people managed to get a bogus behaviour! On my system, I can scroll webpages for half a minute then, suddendly, it stoppes scrolling. How they managed to broke it is beyond my imagination but the amount of clicks required to regain scroll capability is more than just hateful. I can understand they have rendering issues or troubles selecting the correct focus (or none at all) but this is stretching it! Massimo --=-fqvYWHMjWgPy91JvFD1c Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.6.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> Greetings to list members (I'm new)!<BR> <BR> Il giorno mar, 20/06/2006 alle 22.53 -0500, Eli Naeher ha scritto: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> ...<FONT COLOR="#000000">So when Firefox suddenly decides not to let you get</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">focus on anything</FONT>... </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> I find amazing how those people managed to get a bogus behaviour!<BR> On my system, I can scroll webpages for half a minute then, suddendly, it stoppes scrolling.<BR> How they managed to broke it is beyond my imagination but the amount of clicks required to regain scroll capability is more than just hateful. I can understand they have rendering issues or troubles selecting the correct focus (or none at all) but this is stretching it!<BR> <BR> <BR> Massimo </BODY> </HTML> --=-fqvYWHMjWgPy91JvFD1c--
From: Patrick Carr Date: 16:56 on 21 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Eli Naeher wrote: > > 1. Epiphany, I believe, is the "minimal" Gnome browser [2], forked by > parties who felt that Galeon was too bloated. "Minimal," to me, seems > at odds with "has to open a new socket to render a Find In Page > dialog," but what do I know. > > 2. Remeber when Firefox was Phoenix? And it was supposed to be the > "minimal" version of Mozilla? Which was the supposed to be a > stripped-down interface to Netscape Communicator's rendering engine? > Does "minimal" now mean "does not require liquid coolant to run?" There's an obvious evolution of software that goes something like: alpha: Application X was bloated and crufty, and no one likes to debug, so we've written Replacement Application Y entirely in Shiny New Object language that we learned in school yesterday! This is an alpha, so window management is unstable; don't expect it to work. (400k) beta: Windows stay where they're supposed to be now; we fixed that by writing our own widgets. (800k) 1.0: All bugs more or less fixed. Because of NUMEROUS user suggestions, we've added skins. (1M) 1.1: Lots of people were complaining about crashes and memory leaks that we couldn't fix, so we've bundled a crash reporter. (1.4M) 1.1.1: The crash reporter is now skinnable. (1.4M) 1.2: Added mail client capability. IMAP is currently sort of-working. (3M) alpha: Application Y was bloated and crufty, etc., etc. Pat
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 01:25 on 22 Jun 2006 Subject: Re: and on the topic of firefox biting shiny metal asses * Patrick Carr <pmc1@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-06-21 18:00]: > There's an obvious evolution of software that goes something > like: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html Regards,
Generated at 17:46 on 19 Jul 2006 by mariachi