You don't understand English do you? Are you Romanian or something?
You don't seem to grasp terms that have been repeated to you more than 3 times, so I know I cannot get through to that empty space between your ears.
You are a complete retard. There is no questioning it, no denying it, the only thing you are good for is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into feces.
Doesn't do jack with 1.0.5; absolutely nothing. That was the last version of Firefox I used and I was given that exact tip in a previous Firefox thread.
So no, you're not really following the completely stopping new windows part, cause it didn't work, websites could still open new windows on me instead of them being tabs.
Who said Internet Explorer son? I don't recall mentioning it.
Perhaps you confuse Internet Explorer with all web browsers not named Firefox? My, but that's rather silly of you.
Things like being totally unable to turn Firefox into a pop-up-less, completely tab-based web browser like Opera is?
I'd spent so long trying to get that alone to work, and it flat out doesn't. Not to mention the tab related extensions turned an already unstable browser into a crashing hell.
I want to like Firefox, I really do, but it's just so terrible that I find I am compeletely unable to.
The biggest thing outside of those two, relatively simple things is that I cannot configure damned-near anything in the Options, so what the hell is it for?
Now all Firefox needs is to be stable and configurable without the need to add dozens of extensions that add functionality and remove any semblance of stability.
You analogy is flawed, it's more like having no built in phone. It still can do anything a computer is supposed to do, you just cannot communicate with others with it.
Hardly the be all and end all of computers or cars.
I really don't think that it will become any kind of standard for Unix-likes.
The idea behind Unix has always been to have small parts that do their own job, not some giant monster that does everything.
It would probably become the common with Linux distributions pretty quickly if it worked well on FreeBSD and Apple allowed for the code to be relicensed under BSD terms - but I don't think that the operating systems that are trying to be Unix-like will adopt it.
You are confused, it is Sun's poor support of FreeBSD that is the issue - FreeBSD doesn't make Java.
Re:I remember that benchmark too.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The article itself was in no way a troll, though your trolling was, if not deliberate trolling, being a retard.
Perhaps you can stop being a douche and people will stop calling you one, you douche.
You seem to have a condition I have observed, I like to call what you suffer from Bigger Dick Software Syndrome.
What's happening is that you're upset that there is something competing with your beloved Linux and it claims not only to be more Open than Linux because it doesn't do closed source drivers and modules but claims to be more Free than Linux because it doesn't use the GPL - you look down at the dirt for a second and then decide since you cannot prove your point of view to these people that you have to make as big of a possiblea dick as you can instead.
Feel free to return to bugger off some time and leave everyone else alone, you're wonderfully insightful and informative tripe doesn't really interest anyone that knows anything.
Bigger dick competitions don't belong here, go become a world leader, being a cocky douche seems to be great for one's career in that field.
I'd not even want to donate unless it was to be the BSD contender to Blender.
I'm all for opening source code and all, but if I am putting money into something like this I would prefer it fills a niche that isn't already taken.
As it is, it would just be another Blender that hasn't even been ported to other systems yet.
Oh course, I am biased, LGPL or GPL it doesn't make much of a difference to me, that's the Free Software Foundation's area, one which I try to avoid simply because I disagree with the license.
Maybe if this was something new that doesn't have an already existant project competing with it I'd be a little less against it going GNU license, but as it is it would be an overlap that I don't really care about.
I know full well pkgsrc works on many platforms, you missed Solaris, which Sun dontated some hardware to NetBSD so they could more easily maintain pkgsrc on.
But that has nothing to do with this, this was some random Joe making the false assumption that pkgsrc is some amazing multiplatform solution that has lifted a great responsiblity off the shoulders of the BSD developers so that all projects would merge their efforts. This is not true.
Incorrectly you state that DragonFlyBSD does not have it's own ports, it does. It is a split from the already existant FreeBSD ports, but it is it's own tree maintained by other people.
All the BSDs have their own ports, that was my point - the pkgsrc people are doing extra work so they can have the same packages on more than one platform, no project has chosen to replace the already in-place ports trees with pkgsrc.
The Free Software Foundation trys to dictate what freedom is, what would you call that other than trying to redefine the word?
Last I checked, the Free Software Foundation wanted to take away my freedom to do whatever I want with my code, so everyone can have their definition of freedom.
I see the stupidity of a organization deciding to try and dictate what is and isn't open source. Open source is having access to the code, that is all, not even the ability to use that code is implied with the term open source. Yet the Open Source Inititive tries to tell everyone what isn't open source, something that came along well before they did and is broader than they define it.
Perhaps because I see that stupidity, I can see the stupidity of companies trying to gain the Open Source Inititive's favour. That's like an organisation forming to dictate what is and isn't a liquid, people applying their drinks to be certified as liquids and the group only approving a select set of liquids. It's nonsense.
I never said it wasn't developing fast enough, I said that the browser is being developed in a manner that makes no sense, they're adding stuff, but nothing in the programme to manipulate the additions.
I also never said I expected Firefox to work exactly how I want it by default, I want it so I can make it work that way. Which, it seems is impossible, flat out, without me making my own goddamned extension.
The purpose of the Options should be to select options, not to be almost empty so people have to change flags in order to turn on the ability to select options.
I could care less how rapidly a browser develops, I want it to follow what I would have thought common sense, "if it's an option, have it configurable in the Options."
The fact that there isn't a part in the browser to configure shortcuts and macros bothers me. I'm sorry if you like to run around looking through various chrome files for every possible configuration change. The ability to switch to being completely tab driven should just be there, it should not be something that is only possible through an extension.
Oh, browser.tabs.opentabfor.windowopen doesn't set it so when you open a window it opens a tab, nor does browser.tabs.showSingleWindowModePrefs. I guess the damn thing just isn't ready to be a tabbed browser yet. Maybe later, but right now it's bouncing on the edge unwilling to actually cross the damned line and become what Opera has been for a long time now.
With the hidden options which one must hunt for, Firefox may infact be powerful, but not in a manner that is accessable, not accessable to anyone that is not willing to devote hours tracking down and changing things to configure their web browser.
It took me 10 minutes to configure Opera 8.01, it has taken me more than 7 hours of work and I still haven't gotten Firefox to actually stick within tabs alone. Me, I guess I'm crazy, I want my options all in one place, cleanly.
I said it at the beginning, Firefox isn't being made so that it can actually be configured by people, it is not easily customizable, though obviously it is configurable by Firefox devotees who already know what to change.
That's about as built in as the sex in San Andreas or unlocking Ein in Dead or Alive, there is no way to get to it without knowing exactly what you're doing in the first place.
Also, I already have that option set to true and the additional options do not exist within the Advanced options, so you're incorrect. It's browser.tabs.showSingleWindowModePrefs you were refferring to, but it does not add jack to the Advanced nor the Tabs options. Though I suppose that browser.tabs.opentabfor.windowopen would work for what I wanted in the beginning.
Once again, this is stuff that should be set up in your options to begin with, not unlocked by knowing what option to change a bigass list of options.
"I am still running it today, as I have yet to download Opera..."
Anyways, this kind of thing shouldn't require an extension. It should be in options, along with how tabs functionm instead it takes a bunch of time hunting down the desired functionality in extensions or writing some oneself.
That kind of stuff bugs the hell out of me. The idea of extensions is great, adding to a web browser is a novel and interesting concept. But adding basic controls through stuff you have to find yourself is a pain which could be easily avoided. Things like download managers and irc clients I can understand as being extensions, but having a button to close a tab, or how tabs handle mouse overs should be a built in option.
I am bias, I had used Internet Explorer for years and then Opera, trying the latest Mozilla every once and a while, but I could never stick with it.
Every single time I went to do something there would be a nagging issue that I could do nothing about.
I have to work to get Opera to Work Right®, but it is all rather simple to do, the browsers in the 7 and on series seem to be designed specifically for it.
Meh, the adds aren't as annoying as the lack of easy customization for me.
Re:Name one platform Firefox doesn't suck on.
on
The Future of Firefox
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The requirement of so much work to get Firefox to work in what I think of as a sane manner is what has convinced me to uninstall it.
I am still running it today, as I have yet to download Opera, but the lack of ease with which to modify the appearance alone of Firefox just drives me bonkers.
I have spent more than three days reading, researching and trying my damnedest to get Firefox's addressbar to work the way I want it to (keep favicos and put the most recently used domains on the top of the drop down) and have been spending a fair bit of time trying to get Firefox to stop opening more windows and only use tabs, which seems to be impossible.
I admit that this was my first time trying anything Mozilla since like Mozilla 1.3 or so, but I just cannot stand the way it works. At least with Opera it starts almost how I want it and I can easly change what I don't like.
Extensions are fine and all, but I'd rather the browser work right without me spending so much effort on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to grasp terms that have been repeated to you more than 3 times, so I know I cannot get through to that empty space between your ears.
You are a complete retard. There is no questioning it, no denying it, the only thing you are good for is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide and food into feces.
Not me, I thought it was insightful. There are a lot more public assholes today than there were 20 years ago.
So no, you're not really following the completely stopping new windows part, cause it didn't work, websites could still open new windows on me instead of them being tabs.
Really? How have you stopped new windows of Firefox from opening and instead having them open as tabs? It's not an option even with extensions.
Perhaps you confuse Internet Explorer with all web browsers not named Firefox? My, but that's rather silly of you.
Things like being totally unable to turn Firefox into a pop-up-less, completely tab-based web browser like Opera is?
I'd spent so long trying to get that alone to work, and it flat out doesn't. Not to mention the tab related extensions turned an already unstable browser into a crashing hell.
I want to like Firefox, I really do, but it's just so terrible that I find I am compeletely unable to.
The biggest thing outside of those two, relatively simple things is that I cannot configure damned-near anything in the Options, so what the hell is it for?
Now all Firefox needs is to be stable and configurable without the need to add dozens of extensions that add functionality and remove any semblance of stability.
You are not alone, I audibly laughed upon reading that.
That's Loup Garou, or werewolf for you English speakers.
Not only that, she's been a whore to anyone with a wad of cash for decades now.
"Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD is something for Unix lovers" - Heike S., February 1998
Hardly the be all and end all of computers or cars.
The idea behind Unix has always been to have small parts that do their own job, not some giant monster that does everything.
It would probably become the common with Linux distributions pretty quickly if it worked well on FreeBSD and Apple allowed for the code to be relicensed under BSD terms - but I don't think that the operating systems that are trying to be Unix-like will adopt it.
Since when was Java a Unix tradition? C is the onluy standard language that they all support.
You are confused, it is Sun's poor support of FreeBSD that is the issue - FreeBSD doesn't make Java.
Perhaps you can stop being a douche and people will stop calling you one, you douche.
You seem to have a condition I have observed, I like to call what you suffer from Bigger Dick Software Syndrome.
What's happening is that you're upset that there is something competing with your beloved Linux and it claims not only to be more Open than Linux because it doesn't do closed source drivers and modules but claims to be more Free than Linux because it doesn't use the GPL - you look down at the dirt for a second and then decide since you cannot prove your point of view to these people that you have to make as big of a possiblea dick as you can instead.
Feel free to return to bugger off some time and leave everyone else alone, you're wonderfully insightful and informative tripe doesn't really interest anyone that knows anything.
Bigger dick competitions don't belong here, go become a world leader, being a cocky douche seems to be great for one's career in that field.
And so it is better to start with another codebase rather than simply improve the currently available one? I think not.
I'm all for opening source code and all, but if I am putting money into something like this I would prefer it fills a niche that isn't already taken.
As it is, it would just be another Blender that hasn't even been ported to other systems yet.
Oh course, I am biased, LGPL or GPL it doesn't make much of a difference to me, that's the Free Software Foundation's area, one which I try to avoid simply because I disagree with the license.
Maybe if this was something new that doesn't have an already existant project competing with it I'd be a little less against it going GNU license, but as it is it would be an overlap that I don't really care about.
I know full well pkgsrc works on many platforms, you missed Solaris, which Sun dontated some hardware to NetBSD so they could more easily maintain pkgsrc on.
But that has nothing to do with this, this was some random Joe making the false assumption that pkgsrc is some amazing multiplatform solution that has lifted a great responsiblity off the shoulders of the BSD developers so that all projects would merge their efforts. This is not true.
Incorrectly you state that DragonFlyBSD does not have it's own ports, it does. It is a split from the already existant FreeBSD ports, but it is it's own tree maintained by other people.
All the BSDs have their own ports, that was my point - the pkgsrc people are doing extra work so they can have the same packages on more than one platform, no project has chosen to replace the already in-place ports trees with pkgsrc.
Last I checked, the Free Software Foundation wanted to take away my freedom to do whatever I want with my code, so everyone can have their definition of freedom .
I see the stupidity of a organization deciding to try and dictate what is and isn't open source. Open source is having access to the code, that is all, not even the ability to use that code is implied with the term open source. Yet the Open Source Inititive tries to tell everyone what isn't open source, something that came along well before they did and is broader than they define it.
Perhaps because I see that stupidity, I can see the stupidity of companies trying to gain the Open Source Inititive's favour. That's like an organisation forming to dictate what is and isn't a liquid, people applying their drinks to be certified as liquids and the group only approving a select set of liquids. It's nonsense.
I also never said I expected Firefox to work exactly how I want it by default, I want it so I can make it work that way. Which, it seems is impossible, flat out, without me making my own goddamned extension.
The purpose of the Options should be to select options, not to be almost empty so people have to change flags in order to turn on the ability to select options.
I could care less how rapidly a browser develops, I want it to follow what I would have thought common sense, "if it's an option, have it configurable in the Options."
The fact that there isn't a part in the browser to configure shortcuts and macros bothers me. I'm sorry if you like to run around looking through various chrome files for every possible configuration change. The ability to switch to being completely tab driven should just be there, it should not be something that is only possible through an extension.
Oh, browser.tabs.opentabfor.windowopen doesn't set it so when you open a window it opens a tab, nor does browser.tabs.showSingleWindowModePrefs. I guess the damn thing just isn't ready to be a tabbed browser yet. Maybe later, but right now it's bouncing on the edge unwilling to actually cross the damned line and become what Opera has been for a long time now.
With the hidden options which one must hunt for, Firefox may infact be powerful, but not in a manner that is accessable, not accessable to anyone that is not willing to devote hours tracking down and changing things to configure their web browser.
It took me 10 minutes to configure Opera 8.01, it has taken me more than 7 hours of work and I still haven't gotten Firefox to actually stick within tabs alone. Me, I guess I'm crazy, I want my options all in one place, cleanly.
I said it at the beginning, Firefox isn't being made so that it can actually be configured by people, it is not easily customizable, though obviously it is configurable by Firefox devotees who already know what to change.
Also, I already have that option set to true and the additional options do not exist within the Advanced options, so you're incorrect. It's browser.tabs.showSingleWindowModePrefs you were refferring to, but it does not add jack to the Advanced nor the Tabs options. Though I suppose that browser.tabs.opentabfor.windowopen would work for what I wanted in the beginning.
Once again, this is stuff that should be set up in your options to begin with, not unlocked by knowing what option to change a bigass list of options.
Anyways, this kind of thing shouldn't require an extension. It should be in options, along with how tabs functionm instead it takes a bunch of time hunting down the desired functionality in extensions or writing some oneself.
That kind of stuff bugs the hell out of me. The idea of extensions is great, adding to a web browser is a novel and interesting concept. But adding basic controls through stuff you have to find yourself is a pain which could be easily avoided. Things like download managers and irc clients I can understand as being extensions, but having a button to close a tab, or how tabs handle mouse overs should be a built in option.
Every single time I went to do something there would be a nagging issue that I could do nothing about.
I have to work to get Opera to Work Right®, but it is all rather simple to do, the browsers in the 7 and on series seem to be designed specifically for it.
Meh, the adds aren't as annoying as the lack of easy customization for me.
I am still running it today, as I have yet to download Opera, but the lack of ease with which to modify the appearance alone of Firefox just drives me bonkers.
I have spent more than three days reading, researching and trying my damnedest to get Firefox's addressbar to work the way I want it to (keep favicos and put the most recently used domains on the top of the drop down) and have been spending a fair bit of time trying to get Firefox to stop opening more windows and only use tabs, which seems to be impossible.
I admit that this was my first time trying anything Mozilla since like Mozilla 1.3 or so, but I just cannot stand the way it works. At least with Opera it starts almost how I want it and I can easly change what I don't like.
Extensions are fine and all, but I'd rather the browser work right without me spending so much effort on it.
Aqua is much easier on the eyes afterall.