I don't see it getting popular _on tv_ in the US, either. It looks like crap on TV. Plus, it has too low scores to keep your attention.
On the other hand, it's a good game to practice. Everybody does it, in South America. Since we've been playing it since we were kids, we enjoy watching it. I'm really bad playing it, but I really enjoy playing it. Of course, it's good to watch the game you like,played by pros. But it's a game for the guy who plays it, not the guy who watches it.
Another advantage it has, compared to other sports, is that it need little to none infrastructure, so poor kids can play it everywhere. That's no so much of an advantage in a rich country like the US, but here in South America, not every neighbourhood has a dedicated place for some kind of sport. and you can play futbol with anything, anywhere.
Most important, as you stated, you would need to live in a country with history in futbol, like Uruguay, where I live, that won four world championships (two of them even before the FIFA had an independent tournament). We are condemned to keep hoping to repeat old glories (really old).
Not "soccer". Little girls in the US play "soccer". "Football", or "fútbol" is the game where you use your feet to kick a ball, and several other parts of your opponent's anatomies (that's one of the differences with "soccer", the kicking).
I wouldn't wait for Coke to freeze just below 0 degrees C. It would take some more degrees under zero. On the other hand, if they made anti-freeze coke, you wouldn't be able to get Coke smoothies.
Your point is meaningless. "solid" refers to quality. You are talking about marketing. People don't use products that do what they want. They do what marketing makes them do. Just because lots of people drink Coca-Cola, it doesn't mean it's a good beverage. At least not by a nutritional metric. Of course it's a great product, by a marketing metric.
About ethics, well, you can't justify someone who steals a car just because some other guy killed a whole family. Microsoft is a company that has repeatedly commited acts against the law in many countries. They do engage in unethical behaviour. They make lots of their money selling to third world countries.
Whatever Bill Gates does with his fortune doesn't have anything to do with Windows. Plus, charity never fixed anyhing. In most cases rich people use it just to keep the poor quiet, so they can keep exploiting them.
The problem is that it's difficult someone will think you are the quality option. US programmers are not known by their quality coding skills, at least not overseas. The disadvantage the US has with Indian individuals _and_ corporations is not that they can code for less money that you. The problem is that they can code, charge less, provide a better service, and the quality of work you need. TCS has a code farm, here in my country, Uruguay, where they pay around $500 a month to locals, and you are not talking about far-east people that speak like Apu. We are in the same US timezone, and all the people that work there speak good english, with a south american accent (so you can think you are outsourcing to NJ) . What I think is that you can't compete directly with people specialized in this kind of things. I, living in Uruguay, where $1000 a month would be a very good income, don't find it profitable to use rentacoder, so I don't think a US resident would.
Hm.......... X and sound are hardware issues. It depends strongly on the way you buy hardware. My personal experience is that the three SuSE desktops I had at work didn't get correctly configured by Sax2, and I needed to manually edit the XF86Config . On Slackware, I had to run xorgcfg, and when I bought the NVidia card, run its installer, but at least I didn't have to edit the xorg.conf file myself. Not that I fear that file, but I just wanted to show that YMMV when talking about hardware support. About sound, I had the same experience. Maybe it's SuSE that has too bad hardware support, but I was surprised by Slackware 9.1 hardware support. My webcam was plug-and-play. The very old TV capture card, too. Well, I needed to install xawtv. But with hardware, I was pleasantly suprised.
But then, the whitelist feature would be lost. As it is now, users of GNU/Linux either are either completely mainstream office users, somewhat knowledgeable home users, or have some somewhat knowledgeable admin.
I believe that your problem is what you think "Linux" is . Linux is a kernel. It serves as a kernel for industrial uses, server uses, workstation uses, desktop uses. You are looking for an OS and a suite of apps. That's what SuSE does, or Ubuntu, or RedHat.
SuSE does a good job with mainstream types. It has enough software for most of your needs, everything whitelisted, and supported.
Ubuntu is cool for people who don't necessarily know that much about the unix-like environment, but like to tinker with stuff.
"Desktop Linux" can't do what you want, because there is no such entity as "Desktop Linux". There are several distributions with a "desktop" approach, and each of them has different target audiences, and it would be naive to ask for software to install on everyone. After all, you don't try to install your OSX software on every BSD-based software distribution? and I don't hear anybody saying that it's a flaw in BSD software, that you can't install ITunes on FreeBSD.
You have to start at the distribution level, and ask yourself if SuSE meets your needs, or Ubuntu or whatever. The whole issue with "linux" software installation is that the best way to do it is packaging it with the distro. third party software does get "whitelisted" by being included in trusted repositories. If you want some software that has not been packaged for you, then you need someone to do it, someone that can use./configure ; make ; sudo make install . It happens to have the nice consequence that only people with a little bit of knowledge do install software on your computer. That can be nice.
Re:Wrong... This is why open source is so great!
on
Linux Instant Messengers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's what distros are for. They do have all the packages you might want. If you find yourself searching for new software not in your sources list, you picked the wrong distribution. I would pick Ubuntu for new users. Plus they have a great spanish-speaking community, which is a plus if I don't want to give lots of hours of support.
We already knew there were lots of people who didn't care about 3d on their phones. Move along. Nothing for you to see here.
At least you are not one of those whiners who complain about bad service and say that R&D should go into improved their flawed voice phones, instead of useless features.
This is an article for _developers_ who _do_ care about 3d in phones. Maybe _you_ don't have an obvious application for that. Some other people might. Some might like to toy with that. You know how they are, developers, they like to toy with stuff. Sometimes they come up with neat stuff. But they do that _after_ they tinker with stuff other people don't care about.
Anyhow, what i am complaining right now is that I don't enjoy listening to what people don't care about. I come to slashdot, because there are people here that enjoy stuff other people don't care about. Of course, pick any topic, and you will find that most people don't care about it. But I don't think that's what we come here to read. I though we came here to read stuff about people who did have something to say. If you don't have something to say, or you don't care, please, repect your decision, and don't care enough to post. If you want to point out how pointless something is, it's more eloquent to leave it alone, and let it die for itself. Whining about it just spoils the party for the rest of us. In fact, I don't care as much about people whining as I care about moderators that say they are "insightful".
I read you the first time, without the bold letters.
The DOM is not the html. The html is one thing. The DOM is another. Your definition of a broken DOM serializer is, to say the least, very creative. For example, a mobile/lean/sensible browser might get rid of stuff it doesn't need, so it can be fast. Heck! even Firefox should do that! What are some web developer comments doing in my browser working memory?? _That_ is broken! In fact, the "correctness", by _any_ definition, of the parser, shouldn't affect the possibility of a user to save data.
The good thing about web developers is that we are web users, too. I have friends, I watch them. I have _some_ insight about what they think about browsers. Not a lot. But _some_. Just because you think that the WWW reduces to some desktop users, it doesn't make it so. There are mobile users, lynx users, developers, curious people, _future_ users that might have different usage patterns. You can't change the meaning of "save page" to "save rendered page" because they don't mean te same thing. They do have some relationship. They could be the same in some implementation, BTW, in _your_ ideal implementation, but they are _not_ the same thing by every metric. They are the same thing by _some_ metrics that _you_ chose to generalize to the whole universe of people who might use firefox. That doesn't make them the same.
You seem to think that "save page" doesn't mean _exactly_ "save page", and that it means "save the browsers interpretation of the page and make it perfect", but it just isn't the way it works.
gtKam, for the Kamera anyhow, the name is gphoto gtKam is just a client, that you an find in the gphoto page for most cameras, though, you don't need that, because those that implement usb-storage get autodetected by automount when you plug them, if you like that sort of thing.If your camera manufacturer didn't care to make your like easy, you can use gphoto/gtkam.
You don't need to see it that way. It _is_ one way, and _isn't_ the other way. Identity is a very strong relationship, but easily broken. As soon as you change the format of an html document, it's no longer identical. It might be equivalent, but in the space of the particular browser, and not in every aspect. You are sayng that a DOM serialization is "close enough" to an actual HTML saving. Well, it might be close enough for _your_ needs, but not for the needs of everyone that might use it.
When you save an html, it wouldn't be nice that the original formatting, or the comments are lost, or even some non-conformant characteristic you will want to show the developer. Saving the original html is a feature you do need. If you want to save the representation of the document, then you should have some new DOM format, at least some XML should be nice (because DOM has a predictable structure as opposed to some HTML). When you parse the document, some data might even be lost, think about new HTML specifications not covered by the browser. Of course, if what you want is a printed copy, a "render to PDF" feature would be great. But remember that not every html user is a desktop user. I don't even use a "desktop" filesystem metaphor myself. As a matter of fact I use the "save to html" feature to see the actual html generated by my web applications. It's different from DOM, it has comments, and my own formatting. I'm not saying that firefox should cater specifically to me, but I am using myself as an example that not everybody uses the browser the way you think they do, and that maybe some things are the way they are because changing them to suit some specific need, might ruin it for others.
You are not talking about saving html, you are talking about some new "save rendered document" feature that you would like to have. That _would_ be nice, but that's not what the feature does. Of course some users might expect that, when using it, but their expectations would be based in an incorrect interpretation of what web browsers are and do. Maybe a clarifying statement might be put under the functionality access.
1 - I don't know about Linux, but it was pretty difficult for me in mswindows, especially because the default settings didn't work, and the damn scanner button did something other than what I expected.
2 - Ok: Step 1 : ask for the name of the software needed. Step 2 : run gtkam, and get the pictures. For lucky people who have USB-mass-storage cameras, and know how to use mount, it's even easier. As a matter of fact, I don't know how easy it is on win, because I didn't even try to do it with my own cam, it just worked with GNU/Linux, why bother installing Sony software when I can do it with what I ahve already installed? (I dismiss the cost of double-booting, because I need to boot win in order to play some EA games, one a month)
(for step 1, I searched google for: linux download camera pictures )
3 - Again. Step 1 : ask for the name of the software. Step 2 : run aMSN .
google for: "msn linux" or "msn linux webcam"
I'm not saying it's _THAT_ easy, but in my experience, those tasks have required less trouble than with mswindows, partly because I don't have the need to install freaking drivers, vendor supplied software, and juggle CD's.
You know, you get accustomed to those little annoyances, but they do actually make the experience much more difficult than it should be. On GNU/Linux, you have some things that work better, and some things that don't, but it's not a black and white situation, at all.
I didn't answer you in the first place, because I wasn't completely sure about what the GP said. I thought it was that way.
The user does not want to save the dynamic html. The user wants to save the actual html. The actual dynamic html might be changed in a way that reders better in the particular browser, rendering it useless for other browsers.
Anyhow, the issue is whether caching everything twice, or not, just for the sake of letting people save html. I believe a warning dialog would be nice, but caching everything twice is overkill. And saving the serialized DOM would be such a dirty hack, it wouldn't even be cool.
_I_ know that. But the problem is that people in the government believe they can sign it as is, and then change some points. I believe they are not doing that out of malice, or even stupidity, it's just lack of insight. They are requesting a third-party tribunal for violations, and to keep out the restriction of non doing bussiness with people the US don't like. With Venezuela starting to be our economical ally, it's not a safe bet to risk relations with countries that are good for Latin America, and are not regarded nicely in the eyes of the US government. It's an strategical mistake. About _my_ job, well, I'm not _that_ concerned about that, because it's not that difficult to be self-employed here in my field, but my country as a whole is in a bad economical situation, and can't risk good economic relations by focusing just in the US. It's too risky. We were burned before, in 2002, by doing that. The social cost is just too high.
I live in Uruguay, and they are right now negotiating a trade deal that says exactly that: that we should take the same "IP" protection provisions. That point is being debated, but in the end, the strongest part does get what they want.
It seems difficult for you, because you have to speak chinese. Maybe it's Chinese that is difficult, and not Firefox! Tell your father to learn English, and your support calls will be much more pleasant!
The fact that it is in memory doesn't mean anything. The only thing that is in memory is the parsed document, not the original html/gifs/jpegs/everything. That would take much more memory. The original html is in cache, that can be easily reused.
I haven't read the RFCs, but I believe that there is no standard about saving a page, so a web application/user, whoever uses the browser, shouldn't assume anything about it. Assuming that the browser will cache everything just in case you need it later is too much of an assumption, if not backed up by some standard, at least.
It's not a stupid policy not to cache posted stuff. Anyhow, the web developer can avoid the user need to refetch a post.
You wish. But the browser is not a web application client. The browser is a browser of websites. It caches what it wants to cache, and what it doesn't want to cache, it doesn't. You even have a configuration setting in firefox to not let it cache pages in memory, so using that preference might make impossible to save pages without reposting.
If the web aplication has secondary effects associated with the different behaviours that different browsers might have under different circumstances, it's a problem with the web applicaction, and not with the browser, because the browser has no responsibility in taking care of secondary effects of the usage of the browser as a web application client, it doesn't guarantee any correctness in its behaviour, the web developer is the one who should take care of unintended consequences of bizarre behavior of clients.
I am not saying that it wouldn't be helpful that FF did something about it, but it's not their fault to begin with.
I am rigt now developing a web application, and I am taking special care especially in that point, that bookmarks, refresh, reload or back triggered reposts are avoided. It can be done, of course. I know because I am doing it that way. It's ok to have a sloppy web application when that is all you need, but you can't blame its sloppines on the web browser. After all, it's too thin a client to have any responsibility on your web application. And don't get me started about security in those apps that can't even handle an unintended reload. Just replaying packages would be lots of fun.
It's not a browser bug. It's a website bug. You want a browser workaround for a web application bug. They guy is proposing a user workaround for the _web_application_ bug.
Of course, the browser workaround you suggest would protect more people. Anyhow, it's a problem of education. Either you have good websites, or you have users who understand the intricacies of web interaction.
I believe that a warning when repeating a POST for saving, like the one used on refresh, would be nice, though. I still believe it's not a bug in firefox.
Remember, you are an anonymous poster. Anonymous posters can't use the word "me", or "I", because they don't actually exist. We know that you are just agents put in the Slashtrix by the Oracle^H^H^H^H^H^HSQL Server so slashdotters don't disrupt their own environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see it getting popular _on tv_ in the US, either.
It looks like crap on TV. Plus, it has too low scores to keep your attention.
On the other hand, it's a good game to practice. Everybody does it, in South America.
Since we've been playing it since we were kids, we enjoy watching it.
I'm really bad playing it, but I really enjoy playing it.
Of course, it's good to watch the game you like,played by pros. But it's a game for the guy who plays it, not the guy who watches it.
Another advantage it has, compared to other sports, is that it need little to none infrastructure, so poor kids can play it everywhere. That's no so much of an advantage in a rich country like the US, but here in South America, not every neighbourhood has a dedicated place for some kind of sport. and you can play futbol with anything, anywhere.
Most important, as you stated, you would need to live in a country with history in futbol, like Uruguay, where I live, that won four world championships (two of them even before the FIFA had an independent tournament). We are condemned to keep hoping to repeat old glories (really old).
Not "soccer".
Little girls in the US play "soccer".
"Football", or "fútbol" is the game where you use your feet to kick a ball, and several other parts of your opponent's anatomies (that's one of the differences with "soccer", the kicking).
FIFA is using a radio chip so the ball can say it scored a goal, in a football game (the sport you play with your feet).
1 384236,00.html
This is an early announcement:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,
They did use it for the Sub-17 World Cup, last month in Peru.
They refuse to use video, because they say it goes against the spirit of the game.
I wouldn't wait for Coke to freeze just below 0 degrees C. It would take some more degrees under zero.
On the other hand, if they made anti-freeze coke, you wouldn't be able to get Coke smoothies.
Your point is meaningless.
"solid" refers to quality. You are talking about marketing.
People don't use products that do what they want. They do what marketing makes them do.
Just because lots of people drink Coca-Cola, it doesn't mean it's a good beverage. At least not by a nutritional metric. Of course it's a great product, by a marketing metric.
About ethics, well, you can't justify someone who steals a car just because some other guy killed a whole family. Microsoft is a company that has repeatedly commited acts against the law in many countries. They do engage in unethical behaviour.
They make lots of their money selling to third world countries.
Whatever Bill Gates does with his fortune doesn't have anything to do with Windows. Plus, charity never fixed anyhing. In most cases rich people use it just to keep the poor quiet, so they can keep exploiting them.
Lots of things come to my mind when you talk about the manhattan project.
Successful is not even on the list.
The problem is that it's difficult someone will think you are the quality option.
US programmers are not known by their quality coding skills, at least not overseas.
The disadvantage the US has with Indian individuals _and_ corporations is not that they can code for less money that you.
The problem is that they can code, charge less, provide a better service, and the quality of work you need. TCS has a code farm, here in my country, Uruguay, where they pay around $500 a month to locals, and you are not talking about far-east people that speak like Apu. We are in the same US timezone, and all the people that work there speak good english, with a south american accent (so you can think you are outsourcing to NJ) . What I think is that you can't compete directly with people specialized in this kind of things.
I, living in Uruguay, where $1000 a month would be a very good income, don't find it profitable to use rentacoder, so I don't think a US resident would.
Hm..........
X and sound are hardware issues. It depends strongly on the way you buy hardware.
My personal experience is that the three SuSE desktops I had at work didn't get correctly configured by Sax2, and I needed to manually edit the XF86Config . On Slackware, I had to run xorgcfg, and when I bought the NVidia card, run its installer, but at least I didn't have to edit the xorg.conf file myself. Not that I fear that file, but I just wanted to show that YMMV when talking about hardware support.
About sound, I had the same experience. Maybe it's SuSE that has too bad hardware support, but I was surprised by Slackware 9.1 hardware support. My webcam was plug-and-play. The very old TV capture card, too. Well, I needed to install xawtv. But with hardware, I was pleasantly suprised.
But then, the whitelist feature would be lost.
./configure ; make ; sudo make install . It happens to have the nice consequence that only people with a little bit of knowledge do install software on your computer. That can be nice.
As it is now, users of GNU/Linux either are either completely mainstream office users, somewhat knowledgeable home users, or have some somewhat knowledgeable admin.
I believe that your problem is what you think "Linux" is . Linux is a kernel. It serves as a kernel for industrial uses, server uses, workstation uses, desktop uses. You are looking for an OS and a suite of apps. That's what SuSE does, or Ubuntu, or RedHat.
SuSE does a good job with mainstream types. It has enough software for most of your needs, everything whitelisted, and supported.
Ubuntu is cool for people who don't necessarily know that much about the unix-like environment, but like to tinker with stuff.
"Desktop Linux" can't do what you want, because there is no such entity as "Desktop Linux". There are several distributions with a "desktop" approach, and each of them has different target audiences, and it would be naive to ask for software to install on everyone. After all, you don't try to install your OSX software on every BSD-based software distribution? and I don't hear anybody saying that it's a flaw in BSD software, that you can't install ITunes on FreeBSD.
You have to start at the distribution level, and ask yourself if SuSE meets your needs, or Ubuntu or whatever. The whole issue with "linux" software installation is that the best way to do it is packaging it with the distro. third party software does get "whitelisted" by being included in trusted repositories.
If you want some software that has not been packaged for you, then you need someone to do it, someone that can use
That's what distros are for.
They do have all the packages you might want.
If you find yourself searching for new software not in your sources list, you picked the wrong distribution. I would pick Ubuntu for new users. Plus they have a great spanish-speaking community, which is a plus if I don't want to give lots of hours of support.
Does the word "Gentoo" ring a bell for you?
We already knew there were lots of people who didn't care about 3d on their phones. Move along. Nothing for you to see here.
At least you are not one of those whiners who complain about bad service and say that R&D should go into improved their flawed voice phones, instead of useless features.
This is an article for _developers_ who _do_ care about 3d in phones. Maybe _you_ don't have an obvious application for that. Some other people might. Some might like to toy with that. You know how they are, developers, they like to toy with stuff. Sometimes they come up with neat stuff. But they do that _after_ they tinker with stuff other people don't care about.
Anyhow, what i am complaining right now is that I don't enjoy listening to what people don't care about. I come to slashdot, because there are people here that enjoy stuff other people don't care about. Of course, pick any topic, and you will find that most people don't care about it. But I don't think that's what we come here to read. I though we came here to read stuff about people who did have something to say. If you don't have something to say, or you don't care, please, repect your decision, and don't care enough to post. If you want to point out how pointless something is, it's more eloquent to leave it alone, and let it die for itself. Whining about it just spoils the party for the rest of us. In fact, I don't care as much about people whining as I care about moderators that say they are "insightful".
I read you the first time, without the bold letters.
The DOM is not the html. The html is one thing. The DOM is another.
Your definition of a broken DOM serializer is, to say the least, very creative.
For example, a mobile/lean/sensible browser might get rid of stuff it doesn't need, so it can be fast. Heck! even Firefox should do that! What are some web developer comments doing in my browser working memory?? _That_ is broken! In fact, the "correctness", by _any_ definition, of the parser, shouldn't affect the possibility of a user to save data.
The good thing about web developers is that we are web users, too. I have friends, I watch them. I have _some_ insight about what they think about browsers. Not a lot. But _some_.
Just because you think that the WWW reduces to some desktop users, it doesn't make it so. There are mobile users, lynx users, developers, curious people, _future_ users that might have different usage patterns. You can't change the meaning of "save page" to "save rendered page" because they don't mean te same thing. They do have some relationship. They could be the same in some implementation, BTW, in _your_ ideal implementation, but they are _not_ the same thing by every metric. They are the same thing by _some_ metrics that _you_ chose to generalize to the whole universe of people who might use firefox. That doesn't make them the same.
You seem to think that "save page" doesn't mean _exactly_ "save page", and that it means "save the browsers interpretation of the page and make it perfect", but it just isn't the way it works.
gtKam, for the Kamera
anyhow, the name is gphoto
gtKam is just a client, that you an find in the gphoto page
for most cameras, though, you don't need that, because those that implement usb-storage get autodetected by automount when you plug them, if you like that sort of thing.If your camera manufacturer didn't care to make your like easy, you can use gphoto/gtkam.
You don't need to see it that way. It _is_ one way, and _isn't_ the other way.
Identity is a very strong relationship, but easily broken. As soon as you change the format of an html document, it's no longer identical. It might be equivalent, but in the space of the particular browser, and not in every aspect. You are sayng that a DOM serialization is "close enough" to an actual HTML saving. Well, it might be close enough for _your_ needs, but not for the needs of everyone that might use it.
When you save an html, it wouldn't be nice that the original formatting, or the comments are lost, or even some non-conformant characteristic you will want to show the developer.
Saving the original html is a feature you do need. If you want to save the representation of the document, then you should have some new DOM format, at least some XML should be nice (because DOM has a predictable structure as opposed to some HTML). When you parse the document, some data might even be lost, think about new HTML specifications not covered by the browser. Of course, if what you want is a printed copy, a "render to PDF" feature would be great. But remember that not every html user is a desktop user. I don't even use a "desktop" filesystem metaphor myself. As a matter of fact I use the "save to html" feature to see the actual html generated by my web applications. It's different from DOM, it has comments, and my own formatting. I'm not saying that firefox should cater specifically to me, but I am using myself as an example that not everybody uses the browser the way you think they do, and that maybe some things are the way they are because changing them to suit some specific need, might ruin it for others.
You are not talking about saving html, you are talking about some new "save rendered document" feature that you would like to have. That _would_ be nice, but that's not what the feature does. Of course some users might expect that, when using it, but their expectations would be based in an incorrect interpretation of what web browsers are and do. Maybe a clarifying statement might be put under the functionality access.
1 - I don't know about Linux, but it was pretty difficult for me in mswindows, especially because the default settings didn't work, and the damn scanner button did something other than what I expected.
2 - Ok: Step 1 : ask for the name of the software needed. Step 2 : run gtkam, and get the pictures.
For lucky people who have USB-mass-storage cameras, and know how to use mount, it's even easier.
As a matter of fact, I don't know how easy it is on win, because I didn't even try to do it with my own cam, it just worked with GNU/Linux, why bother installing Sony software when I can do it with what I ahve already installed? (I dismiss the cost of double-booting, because I need to boot win in order to play some EA games, one a month)
(for step 1, I searched google for: linux download camera pictures )
3 - Again. Step 1 : ask for the name of the software. Step 2 : run aMSN .
google for: "msn linux" or "msn linux webcam"
I'm not saying it's _THAT_ easy, but in my experience, those tasks have required less trouble than with mswindows, partly because I don't have the need to install freaking drivers, vendor supplied software, and juggle CD's.
You know, you get accustomed to those little annoyances, but they do actually make the experience much more difficult than it should be. On GNU/Linux, you have some things that work better, and some things that don't, but it's not a black and white situation, at all.
First it's a little irritating, then you hear it a few times, you hum it in the shower, by the third dates it's "By Mennen!"
- George Constanza
I didn't answer you in the first place, because I wasn't completely sure about what the GP said. I thought it was that way.
The user does not want to save the dynamic html. The user wants to save the actual html. The actual dynamic html might be changed in a way that reders better in the particular browser, rendering it useless for other browsers.
Anyhow, the issue is whether caching everything twice, or not, just for the sake of letting people save html. I believe a warning dialog would be nice, but caching everything twice is overkill. And saving the serialized DOM would be such a dirty hack, it wouldn't even be cool.
_I_ know that.
But the problem is that people in the government believe they can sign it as is, and then change some points. I believe they are not doing that out of malice, or even stupidity, it's just lack of insight.
They are requesting a third-party tribunal for violations, and to keep out the restriction of non doing bussiness with people the US don't like. With Venezuela starting to be our economical ally, it's not a safe bet to risk relations with countries that are good for Latin America, and are not regarded nicely in the eyes of the US government. It's an strategical mistake.
About _my_ job, well, I'm not _that_ concerned about that, because it's not that difficult to be self-employed here in my field, but my country as a whole is in a bad economical situation, and can't risk good economic relations by focusing just in the US. It's too risky. We were burned before, in 2002, by doing that. The social cost is just too high.
I live in Uruguay, and they are right now negotiating a trade deal that says exactly that: that we should take the same "IP" protection provisions.
That point is being debated, but in the end, the strongest part does get what they want.
It seems difficult for you, because you have to speak chinese.
Maybe it's Chinese that is difficult, and not Firefox!
Tell your father to learn English, and your support calls will be much more pleasant!
The fact that it is in memory doesn't mean anything.
The only thing that is in memory is the parsed document, not the original html/gifs/jpegs/everything. That would take much more memory.
The original html is in cache, that can be easily reused.
I haven't read the RFCs, but I believe that there is no standard about saving a page, so a web application/user, whoever uses the browser, shouldn't assume anything about it. Assuming that the browser will cache everything just in case you need it later is too much of an assumption, if not backed up by some standard, at least.
It's not a stupid policy not to cache posted stuff. Anyhow, the web developer can avoid the user need to refetch a post.
You wish.
But the browser is not a web application client.
The browser is a browser of websites.
It caches what it wants to cache, and what it doesn't want to cache, it doesn't.
You even have a configuration setting in firefox to not let it cache pages in memory, so using that preference might make impossible to save pages without reposting.
If the web aplication has secondary effects associated with the different behaviours that different browsers might have under different circumstances, it's a problem with the web applicaction, and not with the browser, because the browser has no responsibility in taking care of secondary effects of the usage of the browser as a web application client, it doesn't guarantee any correctness in its behaviour, the web developer is the one who should take care of unintended consequences of bizarre behavior of clients.
I am not saying that it wouldn't be helpful that FF did something about it, but it's not their fault to begin with.
I am rigt now developing a web application, and I am taking special care especially in that point, that bookmarks, refresh, reload or back triggered reposts are avoided. It can be done, of course. I know because I am doing it that way. It's ok to have a sloppy web application when that is all you need, but you can't blame its sloppines on the web browser. After all, it's too thin a client to have any responsibility on your web application. And don't get me started about security in those apps that can't even handle an unintended reload. Just replaying packages would be lots of fun.
It's not a browser bug.
It's a website bug.
You want a browser workaround for a web application bug.
They guy is proposing a user workaround for the _web_application_ bug.
Of course, the browser workaround you suggest would protect more people.
Anyhow, it's a problem of education. Either you have good websites, or you have users who understand the intricacies of web interaction.
I believe that a warning when repeating a POST for saving, like the one used on refresh, would be nice, though. I still believe it's not a bug in firefox.
Remember, you are an anonymous poster.
Anonymous posters can't use the word "me", or "I", because they don't actually exist.
We know that you are just agents put in the Slashtrix by the Oracle^H^H^H^H^H^HSQL Server so slashdotters don't disrupt their own environment.