Tightly integrated it into windows, for leveraging purposes.
You mean like WebKit in OSX and KDE, or whatever the renderer GNome uses? Don't both of them use that same renderer for the HELP system as well? So basically you're bitching that MS did it, but now everyone does it as well.
Didn't even try to keep on top of updates letting it stagnate. It will have a damaging effect on the web, web standards, and general computing, long after Microsoft drops support for any given version.
So it was OKAY that Netscape/Mozilla fell off the face of the Earth and didn't release a new version for years while they jerked themselves off with rewrite?
You're entire post is either wrong or happened to the other browsers as well.
Its cool how you blame MS and ignore the fact that everyone else does the exact same shit:)
The only people who 'must have a MSI' are the idiots who don't actually know how to manage a network. GPO roll outs work fine with other installers as well.
I agree, the attitude here is bad and definitely reinforces that statement.
But in reality, the only people whining about an MSI are people that manage relatively small networks or will be soon since there is no requirement to use an MSI if you've got a third of a clue. And yes, I'm talking about doing it with all the standard MS tools.
You've obviously never dealt with EXEs that are repackaged MSIs and the deadlocks that result during upgrades.
Firefox doesn't need to be an MSI in order to fit into network wide config/update systems.
All of it can be done via command line switches. They uses NSIS, as do I, and my corp users have no problem rolling out updates and installs via GPO or login scripts.
People that use the MSI excuse are just ignorant and don't know how to admin the network they are one.
For the record, WIX is a pile of shit, InstallShield is worse, and is notorious for fucking shit up because it likes to inject itself inbetween the start menu/desktop/quickstart icons and the app so it can 'check the integrity of the files and restore them to their original state if corrupted'. Translation: When you go to uninstall it, you fucking can't if you don't have the original MSI, and for fucks sake don't plan on upgrading if don't have the original MSI and the new one doesn't have all possible older versions embedded in it.
Anyone suggesting that MSI is a good idea has absolutely no experience or knowledge in the field, or they work for MS or InstallShield. In short, if you push MSI, you are, and I can't say this any nicer, a complete fucking moron.
Don't bother, expecting slashdot fanboys to use logic or common sense and realizing that all software is exploitable is like thinking you can jump to the moon because you have a special pair of Nike's.
You do realize FireFox already reads and writes registry keys right... which is all you need to do to honor GPO...
So by your definition, they've already made it a 'windows specific app'.
Of course, they've also made it an OS X specific app and probably some others, by your definition.
Integrating with the OS is something every app should do, to provide a consistent experience for the users and administrators. Not doing it because it 'makes it OS specific' is a fucking retarded reason not to do it since you're going to have OS specific code for anything more than a basic command line app like Hello World.
If you're going to go to all your FireFox installs and set them up to talk to LDAP, you can probably just use some other configuration management system on your Unix machines. NFS for config files is pretty common, no need to do something else new so you can pretend to be Windows while at the same time not supporting Windows features.
Show me the browser that isn't exploitable, or show me the browser thats been as popular for as long that is more secure.
Go ahead, I'll wait...
I'm not saying IE is great, but the this sort of response is retarded and lead by fanboys who are too stupid to realize that all code has problems and exploits, its retarded to imply something else is better with no valid reason to assume so.
Good job Germany, you jumped on the FUD bandwagon.
Yes, I realize I'm going to be fanboy modded into oblivion, go ahead, you need something in your life to make you feel useful.
You do realize that the fact that FireFox was crashing shows that its also effected by the exploit that hit IE... right?
The ignorance in your post and the fanboys that drool over this sort of thing is mind boggling and is a good example of why people outside of slashdot don't take you or FireFox seriously.
You can use the browser just fine without doing the new user setup, you have used the address bar on your browser before haven't you? 7 or 8, doesn't matter.
Actually, its worse now, I search using Google for MSDN topics from Safari on a Mac using XP in a VM to build/test the Windows version of an app that builds/runs on OSX and FBSD as well (sorry, I'm lazy and don't have any Linux boxes to build it on).
Of course, we do Windows dev, so we pay MS a fortune for software anyway so I doubt they care that I'm not using Bing.
We just had an article (last week?) telling use that FireFox had more market share than IE. Since FF defaults too Google, if Bing was #1 just because its the Default on IE than that means FF and Chrome users must be switching to Bing.
One of these two stats is wrong, only in in the slashdot world is a product that isn't the most popular also using its monopoly power to push other products.
Seriously, give up, you guys twist your stats as bad as MS and all sit around pretending you are right and they are wrong and bad.
Just curious as to if there was actually anyone on slashdot who was so out of touch that they thought that MS used something OTHER than Bing for its sites search.
Do these same people find it shocking that you use Google when search on the various Google sites?
I don't really think anyone needed it pointed out to them that this was the case.
Let me modify that, I'm sure someone wasn't aware of that fact, but they problem aren't important anyway since they must have been living in a deep dark cave in the bottom of some ocean trench.
Its always been on the page that shows up in IE when you first run it asking you which ones you want to use. Its not suprising its not on some secondary page that probably sorts by how often they are downloaded. Since everyone just selects it by default, the ranking on that site probably doesn't realize the difference, MS site or otherwise.
Awe look, someone who thinks they know threading talks about how to do it...
By default, you have no reason to make those API calls unless you want to limit to a certain CPU or set of CPUs, out of the box, by default, all CPUs are fair game for any thread. Unless you have a reason to stay on a particular core or set of cores, than you really shouldn't be prevent the OS from doing its job. You can only make a multithreaded app use less processing power with those API calls, but in a few cases where you know you're going to stay in L1 cache, this is good, as a general rule, a web browser running JavaScript isn't going to fall into this category until our cache sizes get to some massive size no where near where they are now.
FireFox's issue is a common Windows threading issue (holds true with OSX as well I believe), the first thread that does any GUI work, handles ALL GUI work.
A web browsers job is almost entirely GUI work, so having a bunch of threads has limited usefulness when you have to shift EVERYTHING back into the single GUI thread. Welp, there went all your threading improvements, you know why? The GUI is the hardest part of the work load in this sort of app. Heavy DOM parsing and JavaScript hurts, sure, but displaying it is still harder, and lets face it, pretty much everything you do in a browser comes back to displaying. That is, after all, its purpose.
The solution? There are three:
Optimize your drawing so that its done outside the GUI thread, without actually using the native GUI components and then blt'd into the GUI as needed, but this is hardly ever faster.
Use multiple processes, now you have multiple GUI threads to handle the different displays. (Hello Chrome and IE8!)
Optimize your drawing so that its done efficiently ON the GUI thread by not drawing crap that you don't have to. This won't happen because a lot of this requires that you wait for the DOM to load and get to a solid state before displaying it, and people would much rather the page load slower but they get to see parts of it as it streams in. Even if they did jump and go this route, its freaking HARD to do that optimization on a code base the size of Gecko this late in the game. You might want to consider starting over (Don't say that too loud, the MozDevs are all about throwing out and starting over without a good reason)
Firefox, Bugzilla, Camino, Fennec, Lightning, Sunbird, Seamonkey, and Thunderbird.
These are major multi-platform projects.
Mozilla has several projects for first-party add-ons for all of the above such as Firebug, Chromebug, . Then they have tons of major projects that most people never hear about. At the moment they're working on:
Jetpack Raindrop Bespin Concept Personas Prism Snowl Test Pilot Ubiquity Weave Electrolysis
Quick, let me tell you home many of those people actually give a shit about: 3, possibly 4
Firefox, Thunderbird, Fennec, and if you count devs, Bugzilla, which is a pretty stagnate project at this point. Fennec is debatable as well at this point.
Perhaps its not so impressive to see this massive list but more a sign that they don't have any direction and are infact pulling the exact same failure mode that Netscape did. Good job guys, maybe if you're lucky after this time around you can go for a threepeat on doing a bunch of shit no one wants while stroking your own egos and utterly failing to provide anything actually useful.
I'm just jealous, I want to get paid to sit around writing shit that suits me rather than producing something people actually want.
Yes, when you ignore something that EVERYTHING uses, you are broken.
You may be okay with half-assed, but I'm not. When every single test you go up against has one common element that you can't do, it should be a good damn indication that you need to actually FIX that. I could give a shit about work in progress, I want working and I'm sorry my standards are that it actually works before I considering it working rather than 'well, it almost works but I'm gonna count it anyway'.
To pass a test you have to be pixel perfect, period.
Uhm, the three companies you mentioned have had job offers up the entire time of this 'economic hangover' has existed.
You get in the same way people have ALWAYS got in. A friend on the inside or dumb luck.
The friend on the inside helps you bypass retarded HR people, otherwise you have to rely on dumb luck to get past that particular part of the process. After that, you just need to actually have a clue and fill their needs for them.
I've never had to deal with retarded HR in my career, luckily. Every job I can think of having, I got because I knew someone that worked there. In fact, thinking of all the people I know closely, I don't know of anyone right now (with the exception of a google employee friend, which I don't think knew anyone before hand) who got their job without knowing anyone at the place.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed.
I've never heard any claim that any version of IE was a 'rewrite'.
Stop talking out your ass.
Please tell me you aren't a programmer, you clearly don't get it.
If its crashing, they've got 95% of what it takes to own you, the next part is just figuring out how to use that to get some code to run.
No, they didn't, the bought it.
You mean like WebKit in OSX and KDE, or whatever the renderer GNome uses? Don't both of them use that same renderer for the HELP system as well? So basically you're bitching that MS did it, but now everyone does it as well.
So it was OKAY that Netscape/Mozilla fell off the face of the Earth and didn't release a new version for years while they jerked themselves off with rewrite?
You're entire post is either wrong or happened to the other browsers as well.
Its cool how you blame MS and ignore the fact that everyone else does the exact same shit :)
The only people who 'must have a MSI' are the idiots who don't actually know how to manage a network. GPO roll outs work fine with other installers as well.
I agree, the attitude here is bad and definitely reinforces that statement.
But in reality, the only people whining about an MSI are people that manage relatively small networks or will be soon since there is no requirement to use an MSI if you've got a third of a clue. And yes, I'm talking about doing it with all the standard MS tools.
You've obviously never dealt with EXEs that are repackaged MSIs and the deadlocks that result during upgrades.
Firefox doesn't need to be an MSI in order to fit into network wide config/update systems.
All of it can be done via command line switches. They uses NSIS, as do I, and my corp users have no problem rolling out updates and installs via GPO or login scripts.
People that use the MSI excuse are just ignorant and don't know how to admin the network they are one.
For the record, WIX is a pile of shit, InstallShield is worse, and is notorious for fucking shit up because it likes to inject itself inbetween the start menu/desktop/quickstart icons and the app so it can 'check the integrity of the files and restore them to their original state if corrupted'. Translation: When you go to uninstall it, you fucking can't if you don't have the original MSI, and for fucks sake don't plan on upgrading if don't have the original MSI and the new one doesn't have all possible older versions embedded in it.
Anyone suggesting that MSI is a good idea has absolutely no experience or knowledge in the field, or they work for MS or InstallShield. In short, if you push MSI, you are, and I can't say this any nicer, a complete fucking moron.
Yes, everyone knows that, and thats part of what makes it funny.
Don't bother, expecting slashdot fanboys to use logic or common sense and realizing that all software is exploitable is like thinking you can jump to the moon because you have a special pair of Nike's.
You do realize FireFox already reads and writes registry keys right ... which is all you need to do to honor GPO ...
So by your definition, they've already made it a 'windows specific app'.
Of course, they've also made it an OS X specific app and probably some others, by your definition.
Integrating with the OS is something every app should do, to provide a consistent experience for the users and administrators. Not doing it because it 'makes it OS specific' is a fucking retarded reason not to do it since you're going to have OS specific code for anything more than a basic command line app like Hello World.
If you're going to go to all your FireFox installs and set them up to talk to LDAP, you can probably just use some other configuration management system on your Unix machines. NFS for config files is pretty common, no need to do something else new so you can pretend to be Windows while at the same time not supporting Windows features.
Show me the browser that isn't exploitable, or show me the browser thats been as popular for as long that is more secure.
Go ahead, I'll wait ...
I'm not saying IE is great, but the this sort of response is retarded and lead by fanboys who are too stupid to realize that all code has problems and exploits, its retarded to imply something else is better with no valid reason to assume so.
Good job Germany, you jumped on the FUD bandwagon.
Yes, I realize I'm going to be fanboy modded into oblivion, go ahead, you need something in your life to make you feel useful.
You do realize that the fact that FireFox was crashing shows that its also effected by the exploit that hit IE ... right?
The ignorance in your post and the fanboys that drool over this sort of thing is mind boggling and is a good example of why people outside of slashdot don't take you or FireFox seriously.
You can use the browser just fine without doing the new user setup, you have used the address bar on your browser before haven't you? 7 or 8, doesn't matter.
Actually, its worse now, I search using Google for MSDN topics from Safari on a Mac using XP in a VM to build/test the Windows version of an app that builds/runs on OSX and FBSD as well (sorry, I'm lazy and don't have any Linux boxes to build it on).
Of course, we do Windows dev, so we pay MS a fortune for software anyway so I doubt they care that I'm not using Bing.
Except ... MSN IS Bing.
Jesus, you really don't realize that MSN Search, Live Search, and all the other MS search sites have all been the same thing?
You really haven't figured out that MS just changes the names so people don't realize its the same shitty product?
Let me guess, you also think all those registry cleaner popups on websites are honest and really good programs too?
We just had an article (last week?) telling use that FireFox had more market share than IE. Since FF defaults too Google, if Bing was #1 just because its the Default on IE than that means FF and Chrome users must be switching to Bing.
One of these two stats is wrong, only in in the slashdot world is a product that isn't the most popular also using its monopoly power to push other products.
Seriously, give up, you guys twist your stats as bad as MS and all sit around pretending you are right and they are wrong and bad.
Just curious as to if there was actually anyone on slashdot who was so out of touch that they thought that MS used something OTHER than Bing for its sites search.
Do these same people find it shocking that you use Google when search on the various Google sites?
I don't really think anyone needed it pointed out to them that this was the case.
Let me modify that, I'm sure someone wasn't aware of that fact, but they problem aren't important anyway since they must have been living in a deep dark cave in the bottom of some ocean trench.
So we just had a post not too long ago about how FireFox was more popular than IE ... So if thats the case, whats the excuse now?
Wrong, this Windows user still uses Google for searching, its not hard.
Someone actually uses the search field on an MS site? WTF for, don't you want to find what you're looking for?
Its always been on the page that shows up in IE when you first run it asking you which ones you want to use. Its not suprising its not on some secondary page that probably sorts by how often they are downloaded. Since everyone just selects it by default, the ranking on that site probably doesn't realize the difference, MS site or otherwise.
Awe look, someone who thinks they know threading talks about how to do it ...
By default, you have no reason to make those API calls unless you want to limit to a certain CPU or set of CPUs, out of the box, by default, all CPUs are fair game for any thread. Unless you have a reason to stay on a particular core or set of cores, than you really shouldn't be prevent the OS from doing its job. You can only make a multithreaded app use less processing power with those API calls, but in a few cases where you know you're going to stay in L1 cache, this is good, as a general rule, a web browser running JavaScript isn't going to fall into this category until our cache sizes get to some massive size no where near where they are now.
FireFox's issue is a common Windows threading issue (holds true with OSX as well I believe), the first thread that does any GUI work, handles ALL GUI work.
A web browsers job is almost entirely GUI work, so having a bunch of threads has limited usefulness when you have to shift EVERYTHING back into the single GUI thread. Welp, there went all your threading improvements, you know why? The GUI is the hardest part of the work load in this sort of app. Heavy DOM parsing and JavaScript hurts, sure, but displaying it is still harder, and lets face it, pretty much everything you do in a browser comes back to displaying. That is, after all, its purpose.
The solution? There are three:
Optimize your drawing so that its done outside the GUI thread, without actually using the native GUI components and then blt'd into the GUI as needed, but this is hardly ever faster.
Use multiple processes, now you have multiple GUI threads to handle the different displays. (Hello Chrome and IE8!)
Optimize your drawing so that its done efficiently ON the GUI thread by not drawing crap that you don't have to. This won't happen because a lot of this requires that you wait for the DOM to load and get to a solid state before displaying it, and people would much rather the page load slower but they get to see parts of it as it streams in. Even if they did jump and go this route, its freaking HARD to do that optimization on a code base the size of Gecko this late in the game. You might want to consider starting over (Don't say that too loud, the MozDevs are all about throwing out and starting over without a good reason)
Quick, let me tell you home many of those people actually give a shit about: 3, possibly 4
Firefox, Thunderbird, Fennec, and if you count devs, Bugzilla, which is a pretty stagnate project at this point. Fennec is debatable as well at this point.
Perhaps its not so impressive to see this massive list but more a sign that they don't have any direction and are infact pulling the exact same failure mode that Netscape did. Good job guys, maybe if you're lucky after this time around you can go for a threepeat on doing a bunch of shit no one wants while stroking your own egos and utterly failing to provide anything actually useful.
I'm just jealous, I want to get paid to sit around writing shit that suits me rather than producing something people actually want.
Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7
feComp:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-filters-composite-02-b.html
feTile:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-filters-tile-01-b.html
gradient failure:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-pservers-grad-18-b.html
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-pservers-grad-19-b.html
pattern fills:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-pservers-pattern-01-b.html
script failure:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-script-handle-01-b.html
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/basic-script-handle-02-b.html
dom traversal:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-struct-dom-03-b.html
grouping:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-struct-image-02-b.html
supporting svg in svg (seriously, you can't even do THIS?!):
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-struct-image-05-b.html
text selection formatting:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-styling-css-06-b.html
text underline strike through ... really?:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-text-text-03-b.html
trefs:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-text-tref-01-b.html
no text selection at all:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-text-tselect-01-b.html
tspan:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-text-tspan-01-b.html
wrong colors (different shades of green between the two images):
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-struct-cond-01-t.html
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/20061213/htmlEmbedHarness/full-struct-cond-03-t.html
I'd post screenshots but I'm lazy and lets face it, its not going to change because of my bitching.
Yes, when you ignore something that EVERYTHING uses, you are broken.
You may be okay with half-assed, but I'm not. When every single test you go up against has one common element that you can't do, it should be a good damn indication that you need to actually FIX that. I could give a shit about work in progress, I want working and I'm sorry my standards are that it actually works before I considering it working rather than 'well, it almost works but I'm gonna count it anyway'.
To pass a test you have to be pixel perfect, period.
How about this, you pick a test and I'll post you a screenshot showing it rendering wrong.
Uhm, the three companies you mentioned have had job offers up the entire time of this 'economic hangover' has existed.
You get in the same way people have ALWAYS got in. A friend on the inside or dumb luck.
The friend on the inside helps you bypass retarded HR people, otherwise you have to rely on dumb luck to get past that particular part of the process. After that, you just need to actually have a clue and fill their needs for them.
I've never had to deal with retarded HR in my career, luckily. Every job I can think of having, I got because I knew someone that worked there. In fact, thinking of all the people I know closely, I don't know of anyone right now (with the exception of a google employee friend, which I don't think knew anyone before hand) who got their job without knowing anyone at the place.
As opposed to the typical geek snide arrogance of thinking they hold the keys and you had better get to ass-kissing if you want your network to work?