For fuck's sake, is 50 years not long enough?! If you need that long to make enough profit on something to carry on doing business, then YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS FUCKED!
"but IE is just cleaner, easier and quicker to develop for." I'm sorry, but my experience is the opposite. The amount of comments along the lines of "/* Don't change this, IE will break */" we have in my employer's current project is rather alarming. I've got a barmy case where making the width of the banner 100% will cause IE to make the sidebar (which is semantically and CSS-wise independent from the banner) disappear!
"use some fully compliant XSL/XML and tables or divs to create a stack of layers consisting of images that are wrapped in tags." "vertical-align: bottom;" fixed the test case I came up with. It appears to be related to this "bug": https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5821 (Copy and paste into a new window/tab) However, I didn't have time to come up with more complex examples.
"it definitely needs work on fixing CSS/XSL because the box model they use is flat out wrong compared to the wc3 standard and isn't even consistent with how it's improperly implemented." Prove it.
"Can't we pretend that movie was never made, it sucked. It killed Kirk. It brought a villan who was not really a villan to the screen. It was horrible."
I read the novel before I saw the film and thought the novel was far better than the movie. It could flesh out the back-story far better and Soran was far better for it. When I saw the movie, it felt like a lot had been cut out and what was left wasn't explained well enough.
On AMD64, sizeof(int) == 4, just like on ia32. This causes problems, however, when people have done silly things like taken an int and cast it to a pointer.
"And.NET programs obviously will generally use less resources, at least on Windows machines (I admit, I have no idea how Mono works), since there's no VM to run." Err...excuse me?!.Net cirtainly does use a virtual machine.
Considering that, using XSP or mod_mono, it's possible to run ASP.Net web applications on Linux using Mono itself, this is hardly a new development.
Anyhow, there's no such thing as a "VS.Net App". It's been possible to compile.Net applications using VS.Net and run them on Mono (with certain exceptions) for a long time now.
"But script developers are going to see this, realise that their script doesn't work and either (1) fix it, or (2) abandon the idea." Tools like Greasemonkey change the DOM in arbitrary ways. You can't test every possible change somebody might make.
"sure it is, depending on your definition of 'withstand'. if you write your code to gracefully handle cases where the elements it is looking for aren't found and don't rely too heavily on the ordering of elements within the page, then it should continue to work in all but the most extreme modifications." But my point is that Greasemonkey can make any modifications it wishes. You can't assume anything any more, which is an almost useless position to be in. For example, Dean Edwards found his syntax highlighter (which has to "rely too heavily on the ordering of elements within the page") was broken by a Greasemonkey plugin: http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/03/ungreased/
"which will notify the user that it is greasemonkey (or something similar) and not your web page that is causing the problem" Well, that's all well and good, but the site is still broken, which was my entire point. Your reply was that I should blame the guy who wrote the Javascript that couldn't account for every single possibility. Fine, let's go and write Javascript that makes bugger all assumptions about the page it's operating on. Great, we've increased download size and development time, since we now have to test every possible eventuality.
Personally, I'm in the "the user can do what they want with the data given to them" camp, but let's not fool ourselves that these things aren't without cost.
"Remember, this like this never happened before this FF extension" Bollocks. You could write bookmarklets, or user CSS files. Hell, you could disable CSS or Javascript, you could use a browser that displays things a certain way. You could write your own browser. You could use man-in-the-middle programs to rewrite code before it reaches the browser.
The web is about information. The presentation of that information is ultimately up to the user.
Having said all that, I should point out that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the blind adoption Greasemonkey is seeing. A lot of web sites use Javascript that makes assumptions about the structure of the page. By changing the structure of the page, you're going to potentially break pages that dynamically change themselves.
By taking the code and running, you're essentially creating a fork. If your changes become large enough, it could become difficult to keep up with the main BSD tree, which could simply race off ahead of you.
You're right, I made a mistake. So, let's think about this logically: Some drives have 8MB of cache. Most of those hard drives can sustain around 40-50MB/sec. Writing 8MB would take around 200-250ms, minus seek time. The cache may have lots of small files, which would kill your throughput. 16 500K files would put your write time at getting on for 500ms or more. Can a hard drive continue spinning under its own residual power at 7,200 RPM or more for half a second or longer? I'd wager no, considering I hear my hard drives start spinning down straight away when the power goes.
So, parking heads, fine. Writing out the cache? I'd wager there are cases where there simply isn't the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm weird, but I really wouldn't care. My doctor is there to make sure I'm well, not look pretty.
For fuck's sake, is 50 years not long enough?! If you need that long to make enough profit on something to carry on doing business, then YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS FUCKED!
"Oh and it rains a bit" ;)
Sounds like York
"but IE is just cleaner, easier and quicker to develop for."
I'm sorry, but my experience is the opposite. The amount of comments along the lines of "/* Don't change this, IE will break */" we have in my employer's current project is rather alarming. I've got a barmy case where making the width of the banner 100% will cause IE to make the sidebar (which is semantically and CSS-wise independent from the banner) disappear!
"use some fully compliant XSL/XML and tables or divs to create a stack of layers consisting of images that are wrapped in tags."
5 _01.html#007252
"vertical-align: bottom;" fixed the test case I came up with. It appears to be related to this "bug":
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5821 (Copy and paste into a new window/tab)
However, I didn't have time to come up with more complex examples.
Mozilla's box model is not perfect, David Hyatt found an interesting case, but IE is far worse:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/200
If I get the time, I may give this "insane collection of images" issue a go, but some testcases would be really nice.
"it definitely needs work on fixing CSS/XSL because the box model they use is flat out wrong compared to the wc3 standard and isn't even consistent with how it's improperly implemented."
Prove it.
Wasn't it 5-2?
...is that the original release date was around 33 B.C.
"Can't we pretend that movie was never made, it sucked. It killed Kirk. It brought a villan who was not really a villan to the screen. It was horrible."
I read the novel before I saw the film and thought the novel was far better than the movie. It could flesh out the back-story far better and Soran was far better for it. When I saw the movie, it felt like a lot had been cut out and what was left wasn't explained well enough.
You must be British.
On AMD64, sizeof(int) == 4, just like on ia32. This causes problems, however, when people have done silly things like taken an int and cast it to a pointer.
"And .NET programs obviously will generally use less resources, at least on Windows machines (I admit, I have no idea how Mono works), since there's no VM to run." .Net cirtainly does use a virtual machine.
Err...excuse me?!
A quick google indicates that the boehm GC is available in OpenBSD ports. Is it out of date or something?
Considering that, using XSP or mod_mono, it's possible to run ASP.Net web applications on Linux using Mono itself, this is hardly a new development.
.Net applications using VS.Net and run them on Mono (with certain exceptions) for a long time now.
Anyhow, there's no such thing as a "VS.Net App". It's been possible to compile
A number of ISP's SMTP servers will reject your email if the FROM address isn't in a domain they control.
So why is it called "refesh"?
"But script developers are going to see this, realise that their script doesn't work and either (1) fix it, or (2) abandon the idea."
Tools like Greasemonkey change the DOM in arbitrary ways. You can't test every possible change somebody might make.
"sure it is, depending on your definition of 'withstand'. if you write your code to gracefully handle cases where the elements it is looking for aren't found and don't rely too heavily on the ordering of elements within the page, then it should continue to work in all but the most extreme modifications."/
But my point is that Greasemonkey can make any modifications it wishes. You can't assume anything any more, which is an almost useless position to be in. For example, Dean Edwards found his syntax highlighter (which has to "rely too heavily on the ordering of elements within the page") was broken by a Greasemonkey plugin:
http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/03/ungreased
"which will notify the user that it is greasemonkey (or something similar) and not your web page that is causing the problem"
Well, that's all well and good, but the site is still broken, which was my entire point. Your reply was that I should blame the guy who wrote the Javascript that couldn't account for every single possibility. Fine, let's go and write Javascript that makes bugger all assumptions about the page it's operating on. Great, we've increased download size and development time, since we now have to test every possible eventuality.
Personally, I'm in the "the user can do what they want with the data given to them" camp, but let's not fool ourselves that these things aren't without cost.
Haven't they been released under open source licenses?
I'm not especially familiar with OS X, but what BSD-licensed utilities have they taken and not released their changes under the BSD license?
Last I checked, most of the BSD stuff they took is still under a BSD license in OS X.
Care to show my *any* useful Javascript code that can withstand any arbitrary changes to a page? Here's a hint: not possible.
"Remember, this like this never happened before this FF extension"
Bollocks. You could write bookmarklets, or user CSS files. Hell, you could disable CSS or Javascript, you could use a browser that displays things a certain way. You could write your own browser. You could use man-in-the-middle programs to rewrite code before it reaches the browser.
The web is about information. The presentation of that information is ultimately up to the user.
Having said all that, I should point out that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the blind adoption Greasemonkey is seeing. A lot of web sites use Javascript that makes assumptions about the structure of the page. By changing the structure of the page, you're going to potentially break pages that dynamically change themselves.
By taking the code and running, you're essentially creating a fork. If your changes become large enough, it could become difficult to keep up with the main BSD tree, which could simply race off ahead of you.
You're right, I made a mistake. So, let's think about this logically:
Some drives have 8MB of cache.
Most of those hard drives can sustain around 40-50MB/sec.
Writing 8MB would take around 200-250ms, minus seek time.
The cache may have lots of small files, which would kill your throughput. 16 500K files would put your write time at getting on for 500ms or more.
Can a hard drive continue spinning under its own residual power at 7,200 RPM or more for half a second or longer? I'd wager no, considering I hear my hard drives start spinning down straight away when the power goes.
So, parking heads, fine. Writing out the cache? I'd wager there are cases where there simply isn't the time.