Nothing on the web, including Javascript itself, is good, solid, portable, and tested. If these frameworks were stable, they wouldn't be updated literally every day!
Most frameworks I've come across are for convenience, not portability. I've had my fill of frameworks that did batshit insane stuff, like testing for features by probing for the browser's trademark name, all in the name of delivering bleeding-edge features for the lazy that shouldn't be used in the first place.
I'm cynical by nature, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Or, in more scientific contexts, I don't believe in invisible dragons in basements.
Until the problem is demonstrated on AMD hardware, it's possible, but currently does not exist.
Good idea. I took this as a cue to download the latest rollups. With one exception, my Win7 machines are offline, so they don't need to be "fixed".
I'll still keep my old downloads, though. Microsoft has already been caught updating old KB updates without issuing notices or new version numbers, so I wouldn't be surprised if anything DRM related is applied retroactively to the existing downloads.
You already have to be a genius to understand functional languages, so of course those people make fewer mistakes.
I love it when functional fans insist it's more analogous to how the brain really thinks. That's why so few people can figure out how to do things that way.
They say they're scouting for child porn. How can their software tell the difference between an adult body and a child body if it can't differentiate a nude from a dune?
Just to be devil's advocate, I don't like the idea of things like this being "hidden". Firefox does give you control over how it blocks trackers and which list of known trackers exist on the Internet. Hopefully those settings also allow you to control how (and if) trackers are throttled, as well.
Haha... you think they actually give a hoot about that telemetry data? Management makes their decisions and then interprets the telemetry to justify their posisions, no the other way around.
Remember, Microsoft collected huge amounts of telemetry with Windows7. The result was Windows 8.
Henry Ford said it best when he said "If I asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse"
And if customers ask for a new Mac Pro because they DO know what they want, Apple tells them to fuck off.
This isn't the 1980's. The PC industry is a mature market, and Macs are not competing with horses, they are competing with other PCs built out of the same damn hardware.
I'm glad you could clear that up for us without ever having seen the product.
I bought a Mac Mini a while ago, and it indeed sounds like a jet when it gets hot. I was not expecting such a little, low-end machine to be so noisy. So, yeah, maybe there are reasons why people worry about stuff like that with new Macs.
It is on shared hosts when they implement stupid security rules that break things. When I started I was just writing my own homepage and a simple BBS -- no way was I going to pay for dedicated hosting for that.
After more than a decade maybe things are different today, but back then, only PHP worked reliably.
The reason I used PHP is because when I started my web site, I bought space on a shared server, and the only languages available were Perl and PHP. Perl was a PITA because of all the shebang lines (among other annoyances when you don't have admin rights).
In my case, much like JavaScript, I used it because it was really the only option -- not a good one.
Themselves? For being nearly a trillion dollar company, I find it amusing that Apple is a hardware manufacturer and yet doesn't own any of their own factories because it would cost them a few extra bucks.
Lots of companies subcontract though Foxconn and other Chinese companies, but Apple gets most of the blame because they're big and popular. That's unfair. However, Apple is in a position where they could do something if they want to, and they choose not to because they're addicted to making money (and funneling taxes) just like everyone else. You make it sound like Apple has no options and is just a victim of the market. They are the market.
Because they aren't an advertising company and don't have a vested interest in prioritizing data collection on users over all else.
Then why do they try so hard to collect your data, and make it difficult if not impossible for you to refuse? They wouldn't go through so much trouble if it weren't profitable.
People need to stop falling into this trap that data collection is okay as long as they promise not to actually use your data for anything. They shouldn't be collecting anything you don't want to share, especially if they already make plenty of profit on hardware or whatever else beside big data. Every little bit helps, and every company will always try to squeeze every last penny out of you. To think otherwise is naive.
but you'd never actually _test_ it without the 3rd party extension as that would prove that they were right & you were an idiot
Well, back in those days I worked in a newspaper office, a strictly Mac-only operation, and being the office geek, one of my tasks was maintaining our Mac network. Testing extensions was a regular thing, and yes, Apple's own extensions were responsible for tons of those crashes. My favorite thing was reinstalling a system from scratch and immediately having crashing problems without installing Photoshop, Word, Quark, and so on. I recall OS8 had something like 30+ 1st-party extensions enabled by default, and most of them could be disabled to make the system more stable -- much like disabling useless services on Win95.
Incidentally, it was the brand new OS8 that caused half of our CD-ROMs to just die for no reason, and inserting an audio CD caused an instant lock-up. Apple seemed to think it was a hardware issue and offered to fix our machines at $300 a pop, which of course I refused since I knew damn well it was a software/driver issue. They did eventually fix the problem with the 8.1 "Superpatch", but it took Apple almost a full year to release it.
The audio and DVI-D problems were with my Mini, and those never got fixed or even acknowledged. I was able to "fix" the DVI-D problem myself using an 3rd-party underclocking utility. People found out the Mini GPUs were overclocked and caused the DVI-D connector to run out of spec, making it incompatible with almost all monitors on the market (except Cinema Displays, the only displays Apple apparently tested for compatibility). Using the underclocking utility was a PITA since it would only work once the system boot to a desktop, and I decided I didn't want to look at a black screen while the machine was booting, so I just used it with a spare CRT and the damn VGA dongle. As for audio, I didn't need that since I'm a graphics guy and eventually re-purposed the machine as an IRC server. By that time, I wasn't working for the newspaper anymore, and was using PCs almost exclusively, anyway. I ditched Apple entirely once it was no longer a job requirement.
Oh, and that power cable that wouldn't stay in place? It wasn't a broken or defective cable, just a piss poor proprietary design. As such, the only way to fix it was with duct tape.
But, hey, we all know haters never have real-world experience. I've only discussed the defects... don't even get me started about annoyances.
Decades of, "My Mac NEVER crashes!!!", while the machine promptly explodes in their face, and they immediately blame it on a bad 3rd-party system extension. Don't get me started about all the problems I had with my own personal Macs, like the DVI-D ports not working with any monitor I plugged into it, no audio or CD-ROMs after an OS update (and no patch ever released to fix it), the power cable not wanting to stay in its socket because they insisted in using a proprietary cable with no friction or retention mechanism, etc. This was when Jobs was still around, BTW.
Sorry, Apple has always sucked, and Apple people have always been in denial about it.
Seriously, people have kept insisting that uBlock and NoScript would be available for the new API, but I've not heard anybody discuss whether any compromises had to be made to get them working. It's been known for a long time that ad blockers for Chrome don't work the same way as on Firefox, specifically because of the API differences.
Most of the performance issues that have bugged me over the last 10 years have been related to the gargabe collector and the insane amount of memory the browser uses for cache when it doesn't need it. None of that has been fixed or even acknowledged as a problem ("Try disabling x plugin or y extension! It's definitely not our fault!")
Get a single tab to use 1+GB of memory and see if the freezes are still there. Multiprocessing support doesn't address the memory usage issues. It did break a lot of stuff people still liked, though.
I agree. Supposedly it's built into every Intel chipset, which means they spent money reserving the silicon and firmware real estate to have it there.
Its existence is default, even in low-end chipsets aimed at the consumer market, but 99.99% of the time it's disabled and simply a total waste of money and resources. Honest!
Famously, one new executive at JC-Penny decided to finally get rid of perpetual 50%-off sales and offer no-nonsense pricing. It was a disaster for sales.
Stupid as it may be, the reason why they do it is because it works.
There's also the problem that defining a new API is something that's been put off for way too long, because they wasted so much time with marketing gimmicks and UI redesigns.
It's an extensive change and certainly not easy, but it's clear to the Mozilla community that many things in the browser have been broken and essentially ignored for the better part of 10 years (freezes due to cycle collections, for example, which IMO is a bigger problem than raw performance). Once Chrome launched, Mozilla had an, "Oh, shit!" moment in the same vein of Netscape when IE stopped being terrible. Mozilla is still in panic mode, and had they been on the ball, the rollout would have been more graceful and there would be more emulation options.
No, the argument is that if I want a simple, easy-to-remember passcode, I can decide that for myself. The phone should not be limiting me to a simple passcode at setup, and make me jump through hoops to "unlock" stronger passcodes and have to change it later. That's idiotic and very obviously counterproductive for security.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing on the web, including Javascript itself, is good, solid, portable, and tested. If these frameworks were stable, they wouldn't be updated literally every day!
Most frameworks I've come across are for convenience, not portability. I've had my fill of frameworks that did batshit insane stuff, like testing for features by probing for the browser's trademark name, all in the name of delivering bleeding-edge features for the lazy that shouldn't be used in the first place.
I'm cynical by nature, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Or, in more scientific contexts, I don't believe in invisible dragons in basements.
Until the problem is demonstrated on AMD hardware, it's possible, but currently does not exist.
Good idea. I took this as a cue to download the latest rollups. With one exception, my Win7 machines are offline, so they don't need to be "fixed".
I'll still keep my old downloads, though. Microsoft has already been caught updating old KB updates without issuing notices or new version numbers, so I wouldn't be surprised if anything DRM related is applied retroactively to the existing downloads.
The fix they delivered ensured that your phone would not just simply die randomly if the battery was getting really old.
The fix is hiding information from the user and trying to make a problem as invisible as possible.
There's a reason people got pissed at Apple, and not every single other manufacturer that made a battery-powered device over the last 100 years.
You already have to be a genius to understand functional languages, so of course those people make fewer mistakes.
I love it when functional fans insist it's more analogous to how the brain really thinks. That's why so few people can figure out how to do things that way.
They say they're scouting for child porn. How can their software tell the difference between an adult body and a child body if it can't differentiate a nude from a dune?
To each their own, but you can keep your strip malls. It's only bush country for me.
Just to be devil's advocate, I don't like the idea of things like this being "hidden". Firefox does give you control over how it blocks trackers and which list of known trackers exist on the Internet. Hopefully those settings also allow you to control how (and if) trackers are throttled, as well.
Haha... you think they actually give a hoot about that telemetry data? Management makes their decisions and then interprets the telemetry to justify their posisions, no the other way around.
Remember, Microsoft collected huge amounts of telemetry with Windows7. The result was Windows 8.
Henry Ford said it best when he said "If I asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse"
And if customers ask for a new Mac Pro because they DO know what they want, Apple tells them to fuck off.
This isn't the 1980's. The PC industry is a mature market, and Macs are not competing with horses, they are competing with other PCs built out of the same damn hardware.
I'm glad you could clear that up for us without ever having seen the product.
I bought a Mac Mini a while ago, and it indeed sounds like a jet when it gets hot. I was not expecting such a little, low-end machine to be so noisy. So, yeah, maybe there are reasons why people worry about stuff like that with new Macs.
It is on shared hosts when they implement stupid security rules that break things. When I started I was just writing my own homepage and a simple BBS -- no way was I going to pay for dedicated hosting for that.
After more than a decade maybe things are different today, but back then, only PHP worked reliably.
The reason I used PHP is because when I started my web site, I bought space on a shared server, and the only languages available were Perl and PHP. Perl was a PITA because of all the shebang lines (among other annoyances when you don't have admin rights).
In my case, much like JavaScript, I used it because it was really the only option -- not a good one.
Remember when they redesigned their logo to emphasize their "brand experience?"
History has shown that control is more valuable than killing. I'm less afraid of robot overlords and more afraid of ED-209
And who do you suggest Apple uses?
Themselves? For being nearly a trillion dollar company, I find it amusing that Apple is a hardware manufacturer and yet doesn't own any of their own factories because it would cost them a few extra bucks.
Lots of companies subcontract though Foxconn and other Chinese companies, but Apple gets most of the blame because they're big and popular. That's unfair. However, Apple is in a position where they could do something if they want to, and they choose not to because they're addicted to making money (and funneling taxes) just like everyone else. You make it sound like Apple has no options and is just a victim of the market. They are the market.
Because they aren't an advertising company and don't have a vested interest in prioritizing data collection on users over all else.
Then why do they try so hard to collect your data, and make it difficult if not impossible for you to refuse? They wouldn't go through so much trouble if it weren't profitable.
People need to stop falling into this trap that data collection is okay as long as they promise not to actually use your data for anything. They shouldn't be collecting anything you don't want to share, especially if they already make plenty of profit on hardware or whatever else beside big data. Every little bit helps, and every company will always try to squeeze every last penny out of you. To think otherwise is naive.
but you'd never actually _test_ it without the 3rd party extension as that would prove that they were right & you were an idiot
Well, back in those days I worked in a newspaper office, a strictly Mac-only operation, and being the office geek, one of my tasks was maintaining our Mac network. Testing extensions was a regular thing, and yes, Apple's own extensions were responsible for tons of those crashes. My favorite thing was reinstalling a system from scratch and immediately having crashing problems without installing Photoshop, Word, Quark, and so on. I recall OS8 had something like 30+ 1st-party extensions enabled by default, and most of them could be disabled to make the system more stable -- much like disabling useless services on Win95.
Incidentally, it was the brand new OS8 that caused half of our CD-ROMs to just die for no reason, and inserting an audio CD caused an instant lock-up. Apple seemed to think it was a hardware issue and offered to fix our machines at $300 a pop, which of course I refused since I knew damn well it was a software/driver issue. They did eventually fix the problem with the 8.1 "Superpatch", but it took Apple almost a full year to release it.
The audio and DVI-D problems were with my Mini, and those never got fixed or even acknowledged. I was able to "fix" the DVI-D problem myself using an 3rd-party underclocking utility. People found out the Mini GPUs were overclocked and caused the DVI-D connector to run out of spec, making it incompatible with almost all monitors on the market (except Cinema Displays, the only displays Apple apparently tested for compatibility). Using the underclocking utility was a PITA since it would only work once the system boot to a desktop, and I decided I didn't want to look at a black screen while the machine was booting, so I just used it with a spare CRT and the damn VGA dongle. As for audio, I didn't need that since I'm a graphics guy and eventually re-purposed the machine as an IRC server. By that time, I wasn't working for the newspaper anymore, and was using PCs almost exclusively, anyway. I ditched Apple entirely once it was no longer a job requirement.
Oh, and that power cable that wouldn't stay in place? It wasn't a broken or defective cable, just a piss poor proprietary design. As such, the only way to fix it was with duct tape.
But, hey, we all know haters never have real-world experience. I've only discussed the defects... don't even get me started about annoyances.
Decades of, "My Mac NEVER crashes!!!", while the machine promptly explodes in their face, and they immediately blame it on a bad 3rd-party system extension. Don't get me started about all the problems I had with my own personal Macs, like the DVI-D ports not working with any monitor I plugged into it, no audio or CD-ROMs after an OS update (and no patch ever released to fix it), the power cable not wanting to stay in its socket because they insisted in using a proprietary cable with no friction or retention mechanism, etc. This was when Jobs was still around, BTW.
Sorry, Apple has always sucked, and Apple people have always been in denial about it.
Is it the same?
Seriously, people have kept insisting that uBlock and NoScript would be available for the new API, but I've not heard anybody discuss whether any compromises had to be made to get them working. It's been known for a long time that ad blockers for Chrome don't work the same way as on Firefox, specifically because of the API differences.
Most of the performance issues that have bugged me over the last 10 years have been related to the gargabe collector and the insane amount of memory the browser uses for cache when it doesn't need it. None of that has been fixed or even acknowledged as a problem ("Try disabling x plugin or y extension! It's definitely not our fault!")
Get a single tab to use 1+GB of memory and see if the freezes are still there. Multiprocessing support doesn't address the memory usage issues. It did break a lot of stuff people still liked, though.
I agree. Supposedly it's built into every Intel chipset, which means they spent money reserving the silicon and firmware real estate to have it there.
Its existence is default, even in low-end chipsets aimed at the consumer market, but 99.99% of the time it's disabled and simply a total waste of money and resources. Honest!
I don't buy it.
Famously, one new executive at JC-Penny decided to finally get rid of perpetual 50%-off sales and offer no-nonsense pricing. It was a disaster for sales.
Stupid as it may be, the reason why they do it is because it works.
Yes, they have a BMW in the driveway...but also a bulldog in the kitchen. 8)
There's also the problem that defining a new API is something that's been put off for way too long, because they wasted so much time with marketing gimmicks and UI redesigns.
It's an extensive change and certainly not easy, but it's clear to the Mozilla community that many things in the browser have been broken and essentially ignored for the better part of 10 years (freezes due to cycle collections, for example, which IMO is a bigger problem than raw performance). Once Chrome launched, Mozilla had an, "Oh, shit!" moment in the same vein of Netscape when IE stopped being terrible. Mozilla is still in panic mode, and had they been on the ball, the rollout would have been more graceful and there would be more emulation options.
No, the argument is that if I want a simple, easy-to-remember passcode, I can decide that for myself. The phone should not be limiting me to a simple passcode at setup, and make me jump through hoops to "unlock" stronger passcodes and have to change it later. That's idiotic and very obviously counterproductive for security.