Re:I just ran a few simple tests on CSS behavior..
on
Opera 10.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
...and Opera 10 has changed the appearance of at least one crucial CSS item since the most recent version of Opera 9, which, in this specific aspect, conformed to and rendered identical to Safari 3 and 4, Firefox 2 and 3 and even IE 6, 7 and 8.
Opera 10 now features a broken "line-height" CSS behavior, both in terms of how all other renderers behave, and in terms of what the WC3 specifies. Well done.
I suggest you build a validating test page showing the bug and report it to Opera.
Re:It still fails at my simple CSS test.
on
Opera 10.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Opera's focus on following standards often comes back to bite it in the ass.
FWIW, I have my own fully validated pages that fail to render correctly on Opera.
Why does a WEB BROWSER need to support rich text email?
Because Opera is NOT a web browser but an Internet suite: it manages web, email, newsgroup, rss feeds, bittorrent and IRC. There's also a preview version that includes a web server (Opera Unite). And with all this it's still smaller (on disk and in memory) than Firefox alone.
I won't be going to upgrade to version 10, I tried the beta recently and I was far from impressed.
I will stay with version 9 for a while longer.
What kind of problems have you been experiencing with Opera 10? I've been using all the tech previews they've been releasing and only had minor annoyances (the biggest one was some issue with closing pages with loading Flash that under some conditions caused Opera to crash).
In addition to VDPAU enabled mplayer, I can actually FIND CUDA enabled apps. There's CUDA enabled md5 crackers, cuda enabled BOINC, Matlab has a CUDA plugin. I'm considering buying CUDA compatible card so I can install it at work just to play with it in Matlab.
Precisely. At my current job we're developing with CUDA, too. I just think it's really sad thing ATI missed the 'developer friendly' train despite its superior hardware.
As I said, OpenCL is not going to fill the gap. _Maybe_ an ATI CUDA compiler would, though.
No, that won't do. The NVIDIA architecture (which is shared between Tesla and graphic cards) is 32-bit, meaning that it can only flat-address 4GB of RAM tops. The more sophisticated Tesla solutions are essentially built from clusters of Tesla cards, each with its own 4GB of RAM tops. Separate memory spaces means expensive memory transfers to share data between the cards, which is not an issue if you can get good domain decomposition, but is a BIG issue if you cannot.
The revolution for HPC on GPUs would be a 64-bit GPU architecture.
Proper support for doubles and possibly even long doubles would be a plus, for applications that need it.
In other news, ATI is selling their 4870 series cards for $130 on newegg, which are twice as fast as an Nvidia 9800GTS which is the same price (at least on Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty, and any other game that matters). ATI is blowing Nvidia out of the water in terms of performance per dollar and will continue to do so through at least the middle of next year. See here:
Yeah, I'd be making outrageous statements too if I were Nvidia.
Even when it comes to GPGPU (General Purpose computing on the GPU), ATI's hardware is much better than NVIDIA's. However, the programming interfaces for ATI suck big times, whereas NVIDIA's CUDA is much more comfortable to code for, and it has an extensive range of documentation and examples that provide developers with all they need to improve their NVIDIA GPGPU programming. It also has much more aggressive marketing.
As a sad result, NVIDIA is often the platform of choice for GPU usage for HPC, despite it having inferior hardware. And I doubt OpenCL is going to fix this, since it basically standardizes the low-level API, keeping NVIDIA with its superior high-level API.
Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.
There are many possible employments of SVG that have absolutely nothing to do with Canvas, so no. Fix SVG. (This is not to say that Canvas shouldn't be properly implemented too.)
Let me revise my earlier statement: I feel that the Canvas element is potentially quite a bit more important, given the obvious advantages it has for navigation elements, UI controls, and dynamic content. HTML5 and CSS3 should eventually greatly reduce the number of images used in web layouts, especially if we finally get support for proper gradients in CSS.
SVG is ideally suited for static vectorized images, and not much else. There is indeed a use for this, although this is not something that is encountered all that frequently, and can already be achieved by simply linking to a PDF.
I'm afraid I still have to disagree. First of all, SVG is not only for static content, since you can do animations with it.
Also, once you considering linking to a PDF as viable, you're thinking about situations where the content format has little if anything to do with the support capabilities _of the browsers themselves_, whereas I'm thinking about graphic that is an integral part of the webpage.
Moreover, SVG+CSS is much more appropriate (not to mention backwards-compatible) than Canvas for most UI styling.
Finally, support for SVG is already in a _much_ more advanced state than Canvas, HTML5 and CSS gradients. Polishing the remaining bugs would be much faster (and should have higher priority) than implementing things which are not even well-defined standards yet.
As much as I like the *idea* of SVG, it doesn't seem to work particularly well, even in browsers where it is "officially" supported.
Indeed. Of all the browsers that support SVG, for example, Opera is the only one that accepts SVG images from background-image CSS attributes. See this for example.
Safari tends to choke on complicated images, and cannot zoom in on full-size SVG images, making it quite useless for reading maps and the like. Additionally, I've noticed that most current platforms do not include any sort of utility to view/edit/rasterize SVG images outside of the web browser. Firefox 3.5 seems to work fine, but I seem to recall older versions having issues. Here's a reasonably complex image to try for yourself.
The image renders perfectly in Opera, and also in FF 3.0.12 (Iceweasel branding). The rendering is very slow, and faulty, on Konqueror.
Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.
There are many possible employments of SVG that have absolutely nothing to do with Canvas, so no. Fix SVG. (This is not to say that Canvas shouldn't be properly implemented too.)
Firefox is a hog because it's coded to be one, not because of the number of features. Opera provides hundreds more feature than FF (including a webserver) and it's much leaner.
Stoopid Brits,
Because the Americans pronounce the Italian word Zucchini flawlessly.
So I guess we Italians are lucky that 'zucchini' is _not_ an Italian word (the Italian word being zucchina (s.) / zucchine (pl.), the latter being pronounced zook-kee-neh);-)
Even in that case, the "underwhelming minority" companies run by CEOs that are race blind will still prevail and eventually end up killing their racist competitors.
LOL
The alternative you propose is a racial quota system that reinforces the idea that minorities can't ever compete equally so they get special treatment.
Totally not what I propose. The minority quota system is the wrong way to approach the problem (and IIRC it's the way it's done in the USA). The correct solution is to make it illegat to refuse a job on the basis of race (or religion or gender or age or etc).
These books should be public domain by now.
God damn extended copyright might kill another production.
The irony being that the movie companies are the big $$$ behind the ridiculous copyright extensions that are preventing them from not having to go through the JRR descendants to make movies.
I guess the next copyright legislature will make book copyright shorter than music or movie copyright.
"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences
Uh, that's exactly what hate speech is: inciting others to violence against a particular group of people (generally of another race and/or religion).
If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.
Except when the vast majority of employers share the view of CEO Y and thus almost nobody will hire people from minority A which will then have to resort to some other form of survival, which will generally be crime or social welfare, thus reinforcing the stereotype that justifies the view that put them in the situation in the first place.
He's probably assuming malice in TFA comparing an old version of Eclipse with the last version of MonoDevelop, and claiming Eclipse 3.1 is lacking features it actually has.
Making it illegal to redistribute copyrighted content as in making verbatim copies of a text might make sense, but banning _linking_ to copyrighted content is just ridiculous, and so is banning paraphrasing copyrighted content. On the contrary, I would say that it should be _mandatory_ to link to copyrighted content when paraphrasing it ("read the original article _here_").
Slashdot Mirror
...and Opera 10 has changed the appearance of at least one crucial CSS item since the most recent version of Opera 9, which, in this specific aspect, conformed to and rendered identical to Safari 3 and 4, Firefox 2 and 3 and even IE 6, 7 and 8.
Opera 10 now features a broken "line-height" CSS behavior, both in terms of how all other renderers behave, and in terms of what the WC3 specifies. Well done.
I suggest you build a validating test page showing the bug and report it to Opera.
Opera's focus on following standards often comes back to bite it in the ass.
FWIW, I have my own fully validated pages that fail to render correctly on Opera.
Have you reported the issue?
They also offer the Qt4 version, e.g. http://get.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1000/final/en/x86_64/opera_10.00.4585.gcc4.qt4_amd64.deb
Why does a WEB BROWSER need to support rich text email?
Because Opera is NOT a web browser but an Internet suite: it manages web, email, newsgroup, rss feeds, bittorrent and IRC. There's also a preview version that includes a web server (Opera Unite). And with all this it's still smaller (on disk and in memory) than Firefox alone.
I won't be going to upgrade to version 10, I tried the beta recently and I was far from impressed.
I will stay with version 9 for a while longer.
What kind of problems have you been experiencing with Opera 10? I've been using all the tech previews they've been releasing and only had minor annoyances (the biggest one was some issue with closing pages with loading Flash that under some conditions caused Opera to crash).
Why can't I mod you +2 Funny AND Informative?
Oh please. On Slashdot Apple's guilty until proven innocent.
Is there any corporation that this isn't true for?
Microsoft, obviously. Especially here on /.
"ATI's hardware is much better than NVIDIA's. " no. it's not.
"Is too".
Now that we've left the infantile trolling behind, a brief expsition of some of the reasons why ATI > NVIDIA hardware-wise:
In addition to VDPAU enabled mplayer, I can actually FIND CUDA enabled apps. There's CUDA enabled md5 crackers, cuda enabled BOINC, Matlab has a CUDA plugin. I'm considering buying CUDA compatible card so I can install it at work just to play with it in Matlab.
Precisely. At my current job we're developing with CUDA, too. I just think it's really sad thing ATI missed the 'developer friendly' train despite its superior hardware.
As I said, OpenCL is not going to fill the gap. _Maybe_ an ATI CUDA compiler would, though.
You mean like the Tesla?
No, that won't do. The NVIDIA architecture (which is shared between Tesla and graphic cards) is 32-bit, meaning that it can only flat-address 4GB of RAM tops. The more sophisticated Tesla solutions are essentially built from clusters of Tesla cards, each with its own 4GB of RAM tops. Separate memory spaces means expensive memory transfers to share data between the cards, which is not an issue if you can get good domain decomposition, but is a BIG issue if you cannot.
The revolution for HPC on GPUs would be a 64-bit GPU architecture.
Proper support for doubles and possibly even long doubles would be a plus, for applications that need it.
In other news, ATI is selling their 4870 series cards for $130 on newegg, which are twice as fast as an Nvidia 9800GTS which is the same price (at least on Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty, and any other game that matters). ATI is blowing Nvidia out of the water in terms of performance per dollar and will continue to do so through at least the middle of next year. See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/benchmarks,62.html
Yeah, I'd be making outrageous statements too if I were Nvidia.
Even when it comes to GPGPU (General Purpose computing on the GPU), ATI's hardware is much better than NVIDIA's. However, the programming interfaces for ATI suck big times, whereas NVIDIA's CUDA is much more comfortable to code for, and it has an extensive range of documentation and examples that provide developers with all they need to improve their NVIDIA GPGPU programming. It also has much more aggressive marketing.
As a sad result, NVIDIA is often the platform of choice for GPU usage for HPC, despite it having inferior hardware. And I doubt OpenCL is going to fix this, since it basically standardizes the low-level API, keeping NVIDIA with its superior high-level API.
Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.
There are many possible employments of SVG that have absolutely nothing to do with Canvas, so no. Fix SVG. (This is not to say that Canvas shouldn't be properly implemented too.)
Let me revise my earlier statement: I feel that the Canvas element is potentially quite a bit more important, given the obvious advantages it has for navigation elements, UI controls, and dynamic content. HTML5 and CSS3 should eventually greatly reduce the number of images used in web layouts, especially if we finally get support for proper gradients in CSS.
SVG is ideally suited for static vectorized images, and not much else. There is indeed a use for this, although this is not something that is encountered all that frequently, and can already be achieved by simply linking to a PDF.
I'm afraid I still have to disagree. First of all, SVG is not only for static content, since you can do animations with it.
Also, once you considering linking to a PDF as viable, you're thinking about situations where the content format has little if anything to do with the support capabilities _of the browsers themselves_, whereas I'm thinking about graphic that is an integral part of the webpage.
Moreover, SVG+CSS is much more appropriate (not to mention backwards-compatible) than Canvas for most UI styling.
Finally, support for SVG is already in a _much_ more advanced state than Canvas, HTML5 and CSS gradients. Polishing the remaining bugs would be much faster (and should have higher priority) than implementing things which are not even well-defined standards yet.
As much as I like the *idea* of SVG, it doesn't seem to work particularly well, even in browsers where it is "officially" supported.
Indeed. Of all the browsers that support SVG, for example, Opera is the only one that accepts SVG images from background-image CSS attributes. See this for example.
Safari tends to choke on complicated images, and cannot zoom in on full-size SVG images, making it quite useless for reading maps and the like. Additionally, I've noticed that most current platforms do not include any sort of utility to view/edit/rasterize SVG images outside of the web browser. Firefox 3.5 seems to work fine, but I seem to recall older versions having issues. Here's a reasonably complex image to try for yourself.
The image renders perfectly in Opera, and also in FF 3.0.12 (Iceweasel branding). The rendering is very slow, and faulty, on Konqueror.
Should we just focus on the Canvas element instead? Many browsers already have partial support, with a better/standardized specification on the way in HTML5. Some Javascript trickery should be able to add full support to older browsers.
There are many possible employments of SVG that have absolutely nothing to do with Canvas, so no. Fix SVG. (This is not to say that Canvas shouldn't be properly implemented too.)
Firefox is a hog because it's coded to be one, not because of the number of features. Opera provides hundreds more feature than FF (including a webserver) and it's much leaner.
I wonder if anybody has tried targeting the Opera Unite services for holes? Or is Opera still too irrelevant market-wise?
Opera too. No sound, but smooth animations and low resource usages. I wonder why these browsers were not mentioned in the summary. ;-)
I get spam even in gmail
He said "would_n't_"
Stoopid Brits, Because the Americans pronounce the Italian word Zucchini flawlessly.
So I guess we Italians are lucky that 'zucchini' is _not_ an Italian word (the Italian word being zucchina (s.) / zucchine (pl.), the latter being pronounced zook-kee-neh) ;-)
Even in that case, the "underwhelming minority" companies run by CEOs that are race blind will still prevail and eventually end up killing their racist competitors.
LOL
The alternative you propose is a racial quota system that reinforces the idea that minorities can't ever compete equally so they get special treatment.
Totally not what I propose. The minority quota system is the wrong way to approach the problem (and IIRC it's the way it's done in the USA). The correct solution is to make it illegat to refuse a job on the basis of race (or religion or gender or age or etc).
These books should be public domain by now. God damn extended copyright might kill another production.
The irony being that the movie companies are the big $$$ behind the ridiculous copyright extensions that are preventing them from not having to go through the JRR descendants to make movies.
I guess the next copyright legislature will make book copyright shorter than music or movie copyright.
"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences
Uh, that's exactly what hate speech is: inciting others to violence against a particular group of people (generally of another race and/or religion).
If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.
Except when the vast majority of employers share the view of CEO Y and thus almost nobody will hire people from minority A which will then have to resort to some other form of survival, which will generally be crime or social welfare, thus reinforcing the stereotype that justifies the view that put them in the situation in the first place.
He's probably assuming malice in TFA comparing an old version of Eclipse with the last version of MonoDevelop, and claiming Eclipse 3.1 is lacking features it actually has.
Making it illegal to redistribute copyrighted content as in making verbatim copies of a text might make sense, but banning _linking_ to copyrighted content is just ridiculous, and so is banning paraphrasing copyrighted content. On the contrary, I would say that it should be _mandatory_ to link to copyrighted content when paraphrasing it ("read the original article _here_").