Chrome's developmental process is too minimal. There are two visual performance bugs in particular that really get under my skin (awful text-shadow rendering on Windows and inefficient display of background-size: cover) that make me want to kill small animals when I run into them. Since I don't have a graphics background (or enough systems engineering experience to delve into an application as complex as a web browser) all I can do is stand in the bug tracker and stamp my feet. Some of my favourite extensions are supported on Chrome, but at the end of the day, as a web designer, I've decided that I'd rather use a browser that respects my choice of Windows visual style on XP.
The list of reasons I feel unnerved around Chrome is surprisingly long, and surprisingly doesn't feature any of the old privacy complaints. Extensions ain't enough.
I used to be a 30-tabs-in-two-windows type of person, but I increased my tab usage dramatically when TabCandy (now Panorama) was added to the Nightlies. I keep one tab group open for every major task, and type fragmentary URLs in the address bar to switch between them. The system's not perfect, and I've noticed that sometimes when I set out to do something purposeful I'll end up nearly duplicating a tab group in a separate window, but it keeps a lot of slowly-progressing activities and reference sites close at hand. This sort of practice is made somewhat easier by Firefox's tendency to not load old tab groups in the background after an application reopen until they're actually accessed by the user; until then they're just thumbnails, titles, and URLs.
They're actually not that common in academia, where every lab has its own messy solution to everything. Nascent geeks turn off the auto-updater out of force of habit, and then graduate, leaving their less-literate successors with the version that was around at their time. If you hit up StatCounter Global Stats and browse the bar graphs by continent, you'll find that Africa, Asia, and South America all have substantial usage of Chrome 5.
Yep. And when they're ready to implement their fully automatic update system, no one will even care or worry about what version they've got. So, really, the score's in favour of the shorter release cycle.
No, they didn't, and that was a bit of an overstatement. I think some things expire according to staleness, though, and there have been a few occasions where backing up through a form submitted by POST resulted in the browser fetching the page via GET without mention of any of the POST headers. If you want to know the actual and intended status of things, here might be a good place to start researching.
In general, I'd agree with you—I've been burned on bad nightlies on a few occasions in the past—but truth be told, they've been smooth sailing since FF4 came out. Either the devs are getting more careful, or less ambitious. *shrug*
They probably just haven't gussied up the page for the release version yet. If you're feeling gutsy, though, why not take up Nightly? The current builds are very stable and have better memory management than 6 will probably provide.
1. Memory leaks have been a major issue of recent Firefox development. Current FF 8 nightly builds use a tiny fraction of older versions, and they're extremely stable. This is accomplished by no longer caching previous pages (so if you go back, you'll have to reload from scratch.) I've got a cool 200 tabs open right now in a very old session and it's only using about 500 MB of RAM.
2. The status bar can be restored with this extension. Addon compatibility is likely to be more stable in the foreseeable future since most of the major architectural changes were around the 3-to-4 transition.
3. Firefox doesn't run on the iPad. Are you a troll, technically inexperienced, or in a state of reduced mental capacity?
I would suggest mentally normalizing the version numbers into release dates. Keep a list in your head, or on a wall, and then you can judge outdatedness more cromulently:
Firefox 1.0: November 9, 2004
Firefox 1.5: November 29, 2005
Firefox 2: October 24, 2006
Firefox 3: June 17, 2008
Firefox 3.5: June 30, 2009
Firefox 3.6: January 21, 2010
Firefox 4: March 22, 2011
Firefox 5: June 21, 2011
Firefox 6: August 16, 2011
Now, you can truthfully ask yourself "How outdated is this user?" rather than the bogus proxy question "How many versions behind is this user?"
When Chrome finally fixes text-shadow rendering on Windows and doesn't act like a lazy dog when you set background-size: cover on a fixed background image, let me know. On that day, you just might be right.
But tragically, this time it wasn't even remotely Latin-sounding. Oh, how the times have changed for us poor misbegotten students of scientific nomenclature...
While it is ironic that I'd suggest a company that would earn 5 evil points if they were an ISP, I think it's a lot more tolerable when an independent company does it, and makes it clear that the ad revenue on search pages is their main source of income. Also, they have typo-correction stuff in place (in which case you'd never see an ad!), which I think has to be considered as well. If I had to pick a DNS service that toyed with data, I'd probably pick OpenDNS. *shrug* It's just the second-best I could think of.
1. In the footer of every page: 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220. You don't need to register or anything like that to actually use it.
2. It is a little weird that way, and as asdf7890 noted, they even do NXDOMAIN redirects. But I think their benefits (here) have to be weighed against that. Being up-front about their business model can't be ignored, either.
It would probably be one of the most interesting things ever. Slow, though—especially with more primitive and ancient cells, we're pretty sure they took forever to get just about anywhere.
I'm not a practising pharmacologist—or even a medical professional—so I'm afraid I can't provide you with much more than Wikipedia can. From your description, I sincerely would think that any risk of the two major syndromes associated with risperidone has already passed.
Sadly, the mod points will never grace it. Also, I made at least two mistakes in syllable count.
B cells, though, are pretty important in their role as immunoglobin generators. The entire adaptivity and regulation of the immune system is just incredibly nifty—and it's amusing how all proteins are essentially 'signed code'; foreign body recognition is accomplished by checking macromolecules against special templates (as I linked before): anything that doesn't fit is considered dangerous. This is a major reason as to why we never develop antibodies against, say, CD19; any B cells that develop to target them are killed to prevent autoimmune disorders. Usually.
(This is some filler text to increase the average line length. Do not bother paying attention to it; Slashdot's post analytics are just too obnoxiously detailed for their own good.)
The American
haiku is so totally not
really a haiku
But it would surely
be a fool's errand to try
anything tighter
So you shall now get
more or less what you have sought
I hope it pleases.
B is for Bursa
of, specifically,
Fabricius, but:
That only exists
in birds, and perhaps pre-birds
I can't be bothered now.
In humans, B cells
mature in the bone marrow
so we pretend thus:
That we really meant
bone marrow cell all along
but everyone knows.
The B cells produce
immunoglobins, often
called antibodies.
Antibodies are
one of the body's major
active defenses
Each new B cell makes
its own new antibody
chosen at random.
The process for
doing this is really cool
but I'm late for work.
The important point
is that B cells reproduce
if their product works.
That is, if it sticks,
and the body knows it's sticking
to a foreign thing.
Next time please just go
and use Wikipedia for
this kind of query.
- Samantha.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Probably true, but those are both diseases that are somewhat harder to pork-barrel fundamental research under.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Yes exactly.
Chrome's developmental process is too minimal. There are two visual performance bugs in particular that really get under my skin (awful text-shadow rendering on Windows and inefficient display of background-size: cover) that make me want to kill small animals when I run into them. Since I don't have a graphics background (or enough systems engineering experience to delve into an application as complex as a web browser) all I can do is stand in the bug tracker and stamp my feet. Some of my favourite extensions are supported on Chrome, but at the end of the day, as a web designer, I've decided that I'd rather use a browser that respects my choice of Windows visual style on XP.
The list of reasons I feel unnerved around Chrome is surprisingly long, and surprisingly doesn't feature any of the old privacy complaints. Extensions ain't enough.
I used to be a 30-tabs-in-two-windows type of person, but I increased my tab usage dramatically when TabCandy (now Panorama) was added to the Nightlies. I keep one tab group open for every major task, and type fragmentary URLs in the address bar to switch between them. The system's not perfect, and I've noticed that sometimes when I set out to do something purposeful I'll end up nearly duplicating a tab group in a separate window, but it keeps a lot of slowly-progressing activities and reference sites close at hand. This sort of practice is made somewhat easier by Firefox's tendency to not load old tab groups in the background after an application reopen until they're actually accessed by the user; until then they're just thumbnails, titles, and URLs.
That version jump sounds about right. One version for Nightly, one for Aurora, one for Beta, and one for release. Hmm. It might actually be FF12...
When they complete the shift to auto-updating, no one will be worried any longer, I don't think.
They're actually not that common in academia, where every lab has its own messy solution to everything. Nascent geeks turn off the auto-updater out of force of habit, and then graduate, leaving their less-literate successors with the version that was around at their time. If you hit up StatCounter Global Stats and browse the bar graphs by continent, you'll find that Africa, Asia, and South America all have substantial usage of Chrome 5.
I concur—but given your line of work, it'd probably still pay off just to keep a printed list of the release dates.
Yep. And when they're ready to implement their fully automatic update system, no one will even care or worry about what version they've got. So, really, the score's in favour of the shorter release cycle.
I believe this is more a comment on the suspicious newspapery usage of a colon in the headline. Maybe we could commission "a new research" on it?
No, they didn't, and that was a bit of an overstatement. I think some things expire according to staleness, though, and there have been a few occasions where backing up through a form submitted by POST resulted in the browser fetching the page via GET without mention of any of the POST headers. If you want to know the actual and intended status of things, here might be a good place to start researching.
In general, I'd agree with you—I've been burned on bad nightlies on a few occasions in the past—but truth be told, they've been smooth sailing since FF4 came out. Either the devs are getting more careful, or less ambitious. *shrug*
They probably just haven't gussied up the page for the release version yet. If you're feeling gutsy, though, why not take up Nightly? The current builds are very stable and have better memory management than 6 will probably provide.
1. Memory leaks have been a major issue of recent Firefox development. Current FF 8 nightly builds use a tiny fraction of older versions, and they're extremely stable. This is accomplished by no longer caching previous pages (so if you go back, you'll have to reload from scratch.) I've got a cool 200 tabs open right now in a very old session and it's only using about 500 MB of RAM.
2. The status bar can be restored with this extension. Addon compatibility is likely to be more stable in the foreseeable future since most of the major architectural changes were around the 3-to-4 transition.
3. Firefox doesn't run on the iPad. Are you a troll, technically inexperienced, or in a state of reduced mental capacity?
I would suggest mentally normalizing the version numbers into release dates. Keep a list in your head, or on a wall, and then you can judge outdatedness more cromulently:
Now, you can truthfully ask yourself "How outdated is this user?" rather than the bogus proxy question "How many versions behind is this user?"
For posterity, twenty-two, and we'll just... ignore that last sentence.
When Chrome finally fixes text-shadow rendering on Windows and doesn't act like a lazy dog when you set background-size: cover on a fixed background image, let me know. On that day, you just might be right.
But tragically, this time it wasn't even remotely Latin-sounding. Oh, how the times have changed for us poor misbegotten students of scientific nomenclature...
While it is ironic that I'd suggest a company that would earn 5 evil points if they were an ISP, I think it's a lot more tolerable when an independent company does it, and makes it clear that the ad revenue on search pages is their main source of income. Also, they have typo-correction stuff in place (in which case you'd never see an ad!), which I think has to be considered as well. If I had to pick a DNS service that toyed with data, I'd probably pick OpenDNS. *shrug* It's just the second-best I could think of.
1. In the footer of every page: 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220. You don't need to register or anything like that to actually use it.
2. It is a little weird that way, and as asdf7890 noted, they even do NXDOMAIN redirects. But I think their benefits (here) have to be weighed against that. Being up-front about their business model can't be ignored, either.
Everybody loves OpenDNS?
It would probably be one of the most interesting things ever. Slow, though—especially with more primitive and ancient cells, we're pretty sure they took forever to get just about anywhere.
I'm not a practising pharmacologist—or even a medical professional—so I'm afraid I can't provide you with much more than Wikipedia can. From your description, I sincerely would think that any risk of the two major syndromes associated with risperidone has already passed.
Sadly, the mod points will never grace it. Also, I made at least two mistakes in syllable count.
B cells, though, are pretty important in their role as immunoglobin generators. The entire adaptivity and regulation of the immune system is just incredibly nifty—and it's amusing how all proteins are essentially 'signed code'; foreign body recognition is accomplished by checking macromolecules against special templates (as I linked before): anything that doesn't fit is considered dangerous. This is a major reason as to why we never develop antibodies against, say, CD19; any B cells that develop to target them are killed to prevent autoimmune disorders. Usually.
(This is some filler text to increase the average line length. Do not bother paying attention to it; Slashdot's post analytics are just too obnoxiously detailed for their own good.)
The American
haiku is so totally not
really a haiku
But it would surely
be a fool's errand to try
anything tighter
So you shall now get
more or less what you have sought
I hope it pleases.
B is for Bursa
of, specifically,
Fabricius, but:
That only exists
in birds, and perhaps pre-birds
I can't be bothered now.
In humans, B cells
mature in the bone marrow
so we pretend thus:
That we really meant
bone marrow cell all along
but everyone knows.
The B cells produce
immunoglobins, often
called antibodies.
Antibodies are
one of the body's major
active defenses
Each new B cell makes
its own new antibody
chosen at random.
The process for
doing this is really cool
but I'm late for work.
The important point
is that B cells reproduce
if their product works.
That is, if it sticks,
and the body knows it's sticking
to a foreign thing.
Next time please just go
and use Wikipedia for
this kind of query.
- Samantha.
Probably true, but those are both diseases that are somewhat harder to pork-barrel fundamental research under.