I'm amazed at the amateurism with with browser companies pick up this sort of stuff.
Today it is sounds (but not fonts). Yesterday it was videos (but not sounds). Somewhere along the line it was pages hijacking browser shortcuts. And browser companies even going so far as to/not/ fully capture all, and make the default wrong. And they did so after this issie had been reported what,/decades/ earlier? Maximising the browser window, in the past. Pop-ups. The list goes on and on.
Everything gets fucking approached one by one, without a streamlined architecture or thinking behind it. Let alone interface.
Successes? I have never accomplished to get anything working with Wine. Not even with hours upon hours of manual, help pages, forum, etc. reading. What a horrible piece of forever-incomplete, always unstable, butt-ugly malware it is.
You're lucky then. I was at 3.5 GB (!) with seven tabs in two Windows. An about 1 GB increase over the already insane 2.5 GB it would take with previous versions. One of the reasons to not use Chrome, besides its issues of privacy and Microsoft-style monopoly building, is that it uses bizarre amounts of RAM. And now Firefox chooses to "improve" by topping Chrome in precisely that aspect? Yuck.
Again: Who cares. Even if and when Firefox is slower, it still to be preferred. The obvious reason is that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: Google's attempt at owning the internet. That they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and as a result manage to play the abuse smoother does not make it less true. People who use Chrome are either uninterested in matters of internet freedom, naive, or harmful.
Which is why you then resort to first typing it in an editor, defeating the purpose of the masking, to subsequently copy it to the password field.
Except of course when the programmer of the password field was such an intolerable and incompetent turd that she disabled pasting into the field; that unfortunately also happens.
Praise the lord for the demise of that insane masking habit. I've been rallying against it since I first encountered it, which was still in the DOS era. If anything, it should be optional. If no option is given, not masking it is/the better/ choice.
Indeed. I have fond memories for example of how Gnome once decided to remake their desktop environment into little more than a wallpaper, and kept it like that, utterly unusable, for what, two years, all in the name of "goodness". Arrogant turds.
"I consider KDE the only desktop GUI worth using anymore."
That put a wry smile on my face. KDE is the desktop equivalent of the html blink tag, and Word's marching ants. Each new version I give it a try again, and each time its basic failing, of being far too intrusive, and having a UI design seemingly thought up by a drunkard on LSD, is still there.
"Debian violated it's charter when it made the systemd move. No if's, and's, or butt'$; at this point in time, Debian is mimicking RHat..."
Precisely! All knowledgeable people dumped RedHat like the pile of stinking poo it had become very long ago already for changing to be commercialised, non-compatible, and dumping Unix philosophy. Debian essentially did the same with their accepting systemd.
Your comment is now valued at "Score:-1, Flamebait". I'd say that is indicative for the hysterical zeal with which systemd followers hammer down on anything and anybody who points out the fundamental and dangerous failures in it.
Pretty names for applications are silly anyhow, and have always been.
Just give them as name/what they actually are/. "Browser", or perhaps "MS browser". At the very least, build up your application list or start menu or whatever with logical names like, perhaps allowing to append meaningless pretty names: "MS browser (Edge)".
I have so many applications installed, many of which I use only seldom, that I sometimes need to actually start them, or Ixquick them to find out/what they are/.:/ It would also greatly help new, or inexperienced, or old computer users.
Indeed. The high use of Chrome was triggered by issues with Firefox (which I think have been well managed by now). But Chrome is a security and privacy threat. It is a corporate produt. It is vendor lock-in. It eats all memory. It looks like a turd. It is userunfriendly. I have the strong feeling people now mostly use it because it is a trend amongst teens and preteens: "muh friendz have it da cool bro so i gannah have need it too".
Windows 10 uptime is as long as you can defer updates that need reboot. And that is a Windows 10 install that has basically everything installed I can find on the internet which ends in.exe or.msi. It might be just you doing something wrong, or a hardware issue.
This question has been in my head for ages. Browsers are shamelessly slow in action that indeed, should not take more than milliseconds at best. And that is even with clean installs. No idea what amateurs program that stuff, but they have a distorted focus. A focus that directly leads to a deeply userunfriendly experience.
So that actually means it does not arrive on Windows 10 at all. Hell, I only just discovered that there is this abomination on Windows 10, next to Internet Explorer, called "Edge" that purports to be some Windows app-version of a browser? How many people actually know that "Edge" thing even exists?
Still using cmd.exe and then complaining about it, is as silly as still using command.com and then complaining about it.
The serious shell on Windows has been PowerShell, for years already. And whether you want to hear it or not, it is very good, and enormously powerfull.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm amazed at the amateurism with with browser companies pick up this sort of stuff.
Today it is sounds (but not fonts). /not/ fully capture all, and make the default wrong. And they did so after this issie had been reported what, /decades/ earlier?
Yesterday it was videos (but not sounds).
Somewhere along the line it was pages hijacking browser shortcuts. And browser companies even going so far as to
Maximising the browser window, in the past. Pop-ups. The list goes on and on.
Everything gets fucking approached one by one, without a streamlined architecture or thinking behind it. Let alone interface.
Failure much.
Successes?
I have never accomplished to get anything working with Wine. Not even with hours upon hours of manual, help pages, forum, etc. reading.
What a horrible piece of forever-incomplete, always unstable, butt-ugly malware it is.
You are irrelevant.
Your mommy is irrelevant.
What a load of useless crap.
You deserve a slow browser.
You're lucky then. I was at 3.5 GB (!) with seven tabs in two Windows. An about 1 GB increase over the already insane 2.5 GB it would take with previous versions.
One of the reasons to not use Chrome, besides its issues of privacy and Microsoft-style monopoly building, is that it uses bizarre amounts of RAM.
And now Firefox chooses to "improve" by topping Chrome in precisely that aspect?
Yuck.
Again: Who cares.
Even if and when Firefox is slower, it still to be preferred. The obvious reason is that Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: Google's attempt at owning the internet.
That they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and as a result manage to play the abuse smoother does not make it less true.
People who use Chrome are either uninterested in matters of internet freedom, naive, or harmful.
Which is why you then resort to first typing it in an editor, defeating the purpose of the masking, to subsequently copy it to the password field.
Except of course when the programmer of the password field was such an intolerable and incompetent turd that she disabled pasting into the field; that unfortunately also happens.
Praise the lord for the demise of that insane masking habit. I've been rallying against it since I first encountered it, which was still in the DOS era. /the better/ choice.
If anything, it should be optional. If no option is given, not masking it is
Indeed.
I have fond memories for example of how Gnome once decided to remake their desktop environment into little more than a wallpaper, and kept it like that, utterly unusable, for what, two years, all in the name of "goodness".
Arrogant turds.
No kidding. Do all of you folks see my amazed look? :/
B.t.w. does anybody know if systemd already ships its own OS?
Is there something I can do, say sell a kidney or so, to get this upvoted more? To +6 or so? Or +Infinity?
And government approved "news".
"I consider KDE the only desktop GUI worth using anymore."
That put a wry smile on my face. KDE is the desktop equivalent of the html blink tag, and Word's marching ants. Each new version I give it a try again, and each time its basic failing, of being far too intrusive, and having a UI design seemingly thought up by a drunkard on LSD, is still there.
"Debian violated it's charter when it made the systemd move. No if's, and's, or butt'$; at this point in time, Debian is mimicking RHat ..."
Precisely!
All knowledgeable people dumped RedHat like the pile of stinking poo it had become very long ago already for changing to be commercialised, non-compatible, and dumping Unix philosophy.
Debian essentially did the same with their accepting systemd.
Your comment is now valued at "Score:-1, Flamebait".
I'd say that is indicative for the hysterical zeal with which systemd followers hammer down on anything and anybody who points out the fundamental and dangerous failures in it.
Pretty names for applications are silly anyhow, and have always been.
Just give them as name /what they actually are/. "Browser", or perhaps "MS browser".
At the very least, build up your application list or start menu or whatever with logical names like, perhaps allowing to append meaningless pretty names: "MS browser (Edge)".
I have so many applications installed, many of which I use only seldom, that I sometimes need to actually start them, or Ixquick them to find out /what they are/. :/
It would also greatly help new, or inexperienced, or old computer users.
Indeed.
The high use of Chrome was triggered by issues with Firefox (which I think have been well managed by now).
But Chrome is a security and privacy threat. It is a corporate produt. It is vendor lock-in. It eats all memory. It looks like a turd. It is userunfriendly.
I have the strong feeling people now mostly use it because it is a trend amongst teens and preteens: "muh friendz have it da cool bro so i gannah have need it too".
Windows 10 uptime is as long as you can defer updates that need reboot. .exe or .msi.
And that is a Windows 10 install that has basically everything installed I can find on the internet which ends in
It might be just you doing something wrong, or a hardware issue.
How is it possible that a Linux distribution with the name "OpenELEC" is not a distribution meant for operating voting machines?
This question has been in my head for ages.
Browsers are shamelessly slow in action that indeed, should not take more than milliseconds at best. And that is even with clean installs.
No idea what amateurs program that stuff, but they have a distorted focus. A focus that directly leads to a deeply userunfriendly experience.
I saw a guy walking once with one. He looked ashamed.
So that actually means it does not arrive on Windows 10 at all.
Hell, I only just discovered that there is this abomination on Windows 10, next to Internet Explorer, called "Edge" that purports to be some Windows app-version of a browser?
How many people actually know that "Edge" thing even exists?
Agreed. And very eloquently put, chapeau! Sorry I'm not having any moderation points today.
Still using cmd.exe and then complaining about it, is as silly as still using command.com and then complaining about it.
The serious shell on Windows has been PowerShell, for years already. And whether you want to hear it or not, it is very good, and enormously powerfull.
Then again, nobody serious uses RedHat. It has been babylinux from its very inception...