I've seen that page many times already. Maybe the complaints were valid for an earlier version of the browser, but Iron is different enough than stock Chromium now. It leaves out the part about Iron successfully implementing adblock.ini. While there are other extensions for blocking ads, you're left with trying to find out which extension is the real one which stops them from loading, and not just an element hider. Then there are performance problems with some of the extensions, they simply can't handle a large database of websites. Adblock.ini just works, even if you need to add an element hider on top of that for best results.
Also, why is a fork or alternative build of an open-source program automatically a scam? Is Palemoon a scam?
That said, I don't really use Chromium/Iron that much. I was having problems when lots of tabs were open. Some tabs would become unresponsive to scrolling or clicks, but would still display when the tab had become the selected tab. You'd need to wait about 10 seconds for the tab to be able to scroll and click on links. Firefox doesn't develop this kind of problem, so I stick with Firefox. Yes, I know that Chromium downright smokes Firefox in a few rendering performance tests (Try the "Katamari" bookmarklet for example), but Firefox doesn't have unresponsive zombie tabs.
The real reason to use SRWare Iron is so you can use Fanboy's adblock.ini file to stop the browser from loading ads. Then you can combine that with an additional element hider.
FXCop can introduce bugs into programs. I remember a case where someone was trying to follow the "You must explicitly provide every argument possible" restriction. This is where you get warnings when you call a version of a function that doesn't take in every possible parameter. It leads to guessing games as to what the remaining arguments should be. Sometimes you guess wrong, and the code ends up behaving differently, but FXCop is now happy you've filled in every possible argument. So we go from working code that provides 3 parameters to a function, to possibly-working code that fills in all 8 parameters for the function. Leads to buggy, less-maintainable code.
I've used LessFS. On my "server" powered by an Intel Atom, it is very very slow. It writes at about 5MB/sec, even when everything is inside a ram disk. You can't use a block size of 4KB, otherwise write speeds are around 256KB/sec, need to use at least 64KB.
Re:Windows ME did not have DOS.
on
FreeDOS 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Windows ME had DOS just like Windows 98 did, Microsoft just disabled it. You can hack several bytes, and you get DOS back again.
You must be thinking of Windows XP or Windows 2000, which did not have DOS.
The big problem is that you can't compile C programs that make use of GCC extensions using Visual C++. This includes even the most basic stuff, like declaring variables in the middle of your code. It's actually a GCC extension to C, despite being a standard feature of C++.
The only way to compile such programs on Visual Studio is to force the compiler to use C++ mode instead of C mode. Then you get a bunch of compiler errors, because C++ is a different language than C, and gives errors when you assign pointer types that don't match. You need to find every single malloc, then cast it to the correct pointer type the compiler wants you to use, otherwise it refuses to build. Then find all the other pointer assignments that fail as well. Always tons of those.
The lockout chip didn't actually work though, you could stun it with the right voltage applied to the right pin, and it would stop locking out until you power off. See any game published by Camerica, Colordreams/Wisdom Tree, etc. Tengen cheated and illegally copied Nintendo's lockout chip, they lost a lawsuit over that. They could have gotten away scott-free with stun circuitry though.
What about those servers from Content Delivery Network companies? Like Akamai. Major websites use these to give a faster experience to the customers. Often times they actually sit inside your ISP's datacenters. Is that the provider's LAN, or is it the internet?
When I use Firefox, memory usage is still a big problem. After running it for days on end, with lots and lots of tabs open, it eventually starts using 2 gigs of RAM. Then there's problems where Flash Player just stops working after an upgrade. That stopped me from using Aurora and Nightly, because Flash will work for a while, then it breaks after a new Aurora/Nightly version. Whenever there's Flash problems, YouTube often crashes at the end of a video. I really don't mind the "Extension upgrading situation" in Firefox, since I disable compatibility checking anyway. But nobody else knows you can do that. Firefox needs to make it a lot easier to disable "compatibility checking". It's a worthless feature that should be expunged, since it seems like it's more for liability or "not our fault" reasons than anything else. Only a small number of Firefox extensions actually break, like CacheViewer. That was a nice extension, and nobody has fixed or replaced it.
I've also tried Chrome. Actually SRWare Iron, but they're the same thing. (Don't respond with that outdated FUD about 5 lines of code being changed, since official Chromium doesn't support "adblock.ini" like Iron does). After running Chrome for several days on end, it develops a completely different problem. You switch to a particular tab, and it takes about 5 seconds before it responds to anything. No scrolling, no interaction, just seeing the image of the rendered web page, and you are forced to wait until it wakes up. Firefox never had that kind of problem. Also, Noscript and Adblock aren't available in Chrome. At first, I was using the built-in whitelist feature for Javascript, but due to boneheaded design decisions in Chrome, it takes a very long time to start the browser when there is a significant number of entries in the whitelist. Also, it treated first-party and third-party content as equally trusted, so it's just bad. Then I used ScriptNo, which seems to work much better. Kudos, ScriptNo developer! Ad blocking still sucks. Iron has its own ad blocking feature, which works very well, but it can't hide the elements that it is filtering, so you need an element hiding extension as well. Good luck figuring out which Ad-blocking extension is the good one, and which ones are trash, I'm still not sure which one is the good extension. Then there's the problem with user scripts waiting for the page to be completely loaded before they run. For example, I use a UserScript to hide the awful right-side panel from Wikia sites. In Firefox, the script executes instantly with Greasemonkey. But in Chrome, it takes several seconds, as it waits to completely finish loading the page before it executes the userscript. Often there's some slow third-party javascript that isn't loading, and the userscript gets delayed for several seconds until that loads.
But the most annoying thing about Chrome is how it handles focus for links. In MSIE and Firefox, whenever you click on a link, or drag a link to nowhere, the link retains focus, and you can press Tab to go to the next link. But you can't do the same in Chrome or Opera.
In freshly-cleared flash memory, data starts out as FF bytes, all 1s. Then bits are "programmed" to turn them into zeroes. Then when you need to flip them back again, you erase an entire block of memory to all 1s again, then program new 0s onto it.
So is this just an example of 0s leaving more electrons on the system than 1s would? The only weight difference is due to number of electrons, so this is really small.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen that page many times already. Maybe the complaints were valid for an earlier version of the browser, but Iron is different enough than stock Chromium now. It leaves out the part about Iron successfully implementing adblock.ini. While there are other extensions for blocking ads, you're left with trying to find out which extension is the real one which stops them from loading, and not just an element hider. Then there are performance problems with some of the extensions, they simply can't handle a large database of websites. Adblock.ini just works, even if you need to add an element hider on top of that for best results.
Also, why is a fork or alternative build of an open-source program automatically a scam? Is Palemoon a scam?
That said, I don't really use Chromium/Iron that much.
I was having problems when lots of tabs were open. Some tabs would become unresponsive to scrolling or clicks, but would still display when the tab had become the selected tab. You'd need to wait about 10 seconds for the tab to be able to scroll and click on links. Firefox doesn't develop this kind of problem, so I stick with Firefox. Yes, I know that Chromium downright smokes Firefox in a few rendering performance tests (Try the "Katamari" bookmarklet for example), but Firefox doesn't have unresponsive zombie tabs.
The real reason to use SRWare Iron is so you can use Fanboy's adblock.ini file to stop the browser from loading ads. Then you can combine that with an additional element hider.
It doesn't. There's no way to find out who won't rat on you later on.
Load a website you control and look for "X-Forwarded-For" in the HTTP headers?
FXCop can introduce bugs into programs. I remember a case where someone was trying to follow the "You must explicitly provide every argument possible" restriction. This is where you get warnings when you call a version of a function that doesn't take in every possible parameter. It leads to guessing games as to what the remaining arguments should be. Sometimes you guess wrong, and the code ends up behaving differently, but FXCop is now happy you've filled in every possible argument. So we go from working code that provides 3 parameters to a function, to possibly-working code that fills in all 8 parameters for the function. Leads to buggy, less-maintainable code.
It supports USB ethernet adapters, and those are cheap, like about 12 bucks.
You still can't avoid The Google. Ever seen a Recaptcha on a site anywhere? The Google is still tracking you.
And now I've deleted my unused Google+ account.
I've used LessFS. On my "server" powered by an Intel Atom, it is very very slow. It writes at about 5MB/sec, even when everything is inside a ram disk.
You can't use a block size of 4KB, otherwise write speeds are around 256KB/sec, need to use at least 64KB.
Windows ME had DOS just like Windows 98 did, Microsoft just disabled it. You can hack several bytes, and you get DOS back again.
You must be thinking of Windows XP or Windows 2000, which did not have DOS.
One major exception: People don't mind paying their Netflix subscription fee to get better service than piracy. But selection is still a big problem.
This only applies to people who don't have Moderator or Admin privileges on websites. Otherwise, you need to keep your account safe.
As a regular user, the worst someone can do is a Joe Job, make the compromised account send nasty things to other users, or send a ton of spam.
But if you've ever been a Moderator or Admin, you need to keep your password safe.
The big problem is that you can't compile C programs that make use of GCC extensions using Visual C++. This includes even the most basic stuff, like declaring variables in the middle of your code. It's actually a GCC extension to C, despite being a standard feature of C++.
The only way to compile such programs on Visual Studio is to force the compiler to use C++ mode instead of C mode. Then you get a bunch of compiler errors, because C++ is a different language than C, and gives errors when you assign pointer types that don't match. You need to find every single malloc, then cast it to the correct pointer type the compiler wants you to use, otherwise it refuses to build. Then find all the other pointer assignments that fail as well. Always tons of those.
I'm using no-ip.com for my dynamic DNS needs. How do they compare against the others?
Then install MultipleIEs, and you can have your IE6 still exist somewhere, while the main IE on the machine is 8 or 9.
If you don't want to lose all your money to a Phishing scam, you do need to know how a URL is formed.
You can turn off "Compatibility checking", and your add-on will survive a firefox upgrade without breaking.
The lockout chip didn't actually work though, you could stun it with the right voltage applied to the right pin, and it would stop locking out until you power off. See any game published by Camerica, Colordreams/Wisdom Tree, etc.
Tengen cheated and illegally copied Nintendo's lockout chip, they lost a lawsuit over that. They could have gotten away scott-free with stun circuitry though.
Pollution is what's saving the planet from global warming.
See the Global Dimming article on Wikipedia. There was also a NOVA episode on the subject.
What about those servers from Content Delivery Network companies? Like Akamai. Major websites use these to give a faster experience to the customers. Often times they actually sit inside your ISP's datacenters. Is that the provider's LAN, or is it the internet?
When I use Firefox, memory usage is still a big problem. After running it for days on end, with lots and lots of tabs open, it eventually starts using 2 gigs of RAM.
Then there's problems where Flash Player just stops working after an upgrade. That stopped me from using Aurora and Nightly, because Flash will work for a while, then it breaks after a new Aurora/Nightly version. Whenever there's Flash problems, YouTube often crashes at the end of a video.
I really don't mind the "Extension upgrading situation" in Firefox, since I disable compatibility checking anyway. But nobody else knows you can do that. Firefox needs to make it a lot easier to disable "compatibility checking". It's a worthless feature that should be expunged, since it seems like it's more for liability or "not our fault" reasons than anything else. Only a small number of Firefox extensions actually break, like CacheViewer. That was a nice extension, and nobody has fixed or replaced it.
I've also tried Chrome. Actually SRWare Iron, but they're the same thing. (Don't respond with that outdated FUD about 5 lines of code being changed, since official Chromium doesn't support "adblock.ini" like Iron does).
After running Chrome for several days on end, it develops a completely different problem. You switch to a particular tab, and it takes about 5 seconds before it responds to anything. No scrolling, no interaction, just seeing the image of the rendered web page, and you are forced to wait until it wakes up. Firefox never had that kind of problem.
Also, Noscript and Adblock aren't available in Chrome. At first, I was using the built-in whitelist feature for Javascript, but due to boneheaded design decisions in Chrome, it takes a very long time to start the browser when there is a significant number of entries in the whitelist. Also, it treated first-party and third-party content as equally trusted, so it's just bad.
Then I used ScriptNo, which seems to work much better. Kudos, ScriptNo developer!
Ad blocking still sucks. Iron has its own ad blocking feature, which works very well, but it can't hide the elements that it is filtering, so you need an element hiding extension as well. Good luck figuring out which Ad-blocking extension is the good one, and which ones are trash, I'm still not sure which one is the good extension.
Then there's the problem with user scripts waiting for the page to be completely loaded before they run. For example, I use a UserScript to hide the awful right-side panel from Wikia sites. In Firefox, the script executes instantly with Greasemonkey. But in Chrome, it takes several seconds, as it waits to completely finish loading the page before it executes the userscript. Often there's some slow third-party javascript that isn't loading, and the userscript gets delayed for several seconds until that loads.
But the most annoying thing about Chrome is how it handles focus for links. In MSIE and Firefox, whenever you click on a link, or drag a link to nowhere, the link retains focus, and you can press Tab to go to the next link. But you can't do the same in Chrome or Opera.
In freshly-cleared flash memory, data starts out as FF bytes, all 1s. Then bits are "programmed" to turn them into zeroes. Then when you need to flip them back again, you erase an entire block of memory to all 1s again, then program new 0s onto it.
So is this just an example of 0s leaving more electrons on the system than 1s would? The only weight difference is due to number of electrons, so this is really small.
When SSDs get to $80 for 2TB, let me know. They are nowhere near that price/byte ratio.
Are you sure about that? Does Chromium support "Adblock.ini" to blacklist websites? It might be an outdated article.
Sounds like some scare tactics marketing could fix the problem of secure-channel email having no market.