It was new behaviour added to FF3.0; with the Zoom Text Only option enabled, it reverts to the old behaviour.
While the full zoom feature is a boon to users, I fear it will result in a lot of harder-to-use sites: we now have the widest range of screen resolutions in the history of the web, which means more variation in browser base font size. But how many web devs will no longer bother to check that their layouts work at widely differing font sizes, figuring users can "just zoom" if the text looks too small?
I really only use the unix shell for basic stuff like moving files around, changing permissions, managing apache, and launching apps - but one thing that would improve the quality of my working life no end would be a shell that remembers my python commands, like the Windows command line does. ie if I exit from python, when I next go back into python all my old commands are remembered, just like the unix shell commands are.
(I spend a lot longer using the python command line; have tried a couple of dedicated python shells but find there are path issues that you don't get with sh> python. As I said, on Windows it just works the way you want.)
I'm clearly not enough of a geek. Not only did I not get that the GGP was a joke, but couldn't understand a word of the whoosh. I do actually use Linux as my main dev environment, honest.
Anyone care to explain why I should care about the difference between different shells?
Yes, that is a good reason for phones not to support flash in the same way as browsers do; to put it another way people are less likely to put up with pointless animated crap when screen space and battery life are at a premium.
Not a big vote of confidence for flash. But how long will it take web devs to figure out they can't assume flash support - especially with Adobe pumping out propaganda like this?
I'd have to go in each tab and stop them or I get 10 videos playing at once.
This is such an annoyance with YouTube (and some other sites that start playing before you ask them too, such as MySpace) I'm amazed they haven't been swamped by complaints from users. Is it only people who use flash blocking of one type or another who open multiple tabs?
I thought it was a reference to CP Ramanujam, who was famed for his intuitive insights. Trouble is, his intuition was wrong half the time, so is not much use in a yes/no situation.
But whatever arcane cogitations brought him to his conclusion, in this case the AC has probability on his side.
Of course - in some cases devices actually lacks Flash for one reason or another, but this is more on specialized devices and mobile devices...
Stop! You can no longer dismiss mobile devices as an insignificant niche. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK mobile carriers are offering cheap, all-you-can-eat (within reason) broadband. I am about to sign up for it, but none of the phones I've tried have a really excellent browser; even the iPhone doesn't support Flash properly (or at all, if you exclude video).
I am going for a Samsung Omnia, which has a version of Opera on it - that *ought* to be good enough for most things, but I just know will have to cope with stupid web developers who decided to make their site unnecessarily dependent on flash for some crucial bit of functionality, just as I currently stumble daily over sites who never considered that users might have javascript disabled (and apparently don't care whether the googlebot can access their content or not).
This may be true, but within a year or two a sizeable proportion of users will be accessing the web - most likely including your site - using phones. Many of these phones will not have full or any Flash support. In short: you can't rely on it, you can't even rely on javascript: you have to build a robust, HTML-only fallback.
NoScript is the second most popular Firefox extension. Nobody know how many users block javascript because most analytic tools rely on it. OTOH if they used flash's built in self-detection I would show up as a false negative, because I do have flash but only allow it to run selectively.
As for Adobe's claim: patently false - most mobiles here in the UK can access the internet, but only the very latest ones have flash support, and then usually only on selected sites. And I would make an educated guess that the UK has a higher proportion of cutting-edge phones than most places in the world.
HINT: If you have local admin rights, you completely own the machine.
The suggestion is - and the same accusation was made about Vista - that this is not the case; ie that the highest level of access is only available to the system itself, not a user. I haven't seen conclusive evidence of this with Vista, but there have been a few occasions where I have wanted to move or replace a system file and no matter how many dialog boxes have asked for and got my agreement, ultimately the operation has been refused. But in each case I found a workaround that didn't involve disabling UAC, so it's probably just poor GUI implementation. Without details, it's hard to know what's going on here.
While it is quite shocking if there is something in the Windows 7 API that basically says AddFireWallException(myUrl), no sysadmin worth their salt should be relying on the built in Windows firewall anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, define "easy".
It was new behaviour added to FF3.0; with the Zoom Text Only option enabled, it reverts to the old behaviour.
While the full zoom feature is a boon to users, I fear it will result in a lot of harder-to-use sites: we now have the widest range of screen resolutions in the history of the web, which means more variation in browser base font size. But how many web devs will no longer bother to check that their layouts work at widely differing font sizes, figuring users can "just zoom" if the text looks too small?
If you think Chrome will not soon be a major browser, you underestimate the power of GOOG.
I really only use the unix shell for basic stuff like moving files around, changing permissions, managing apache, and launching apps - but one thing that would improve the quality of my working life no end would be a shell that remembers my python commands, like the Windows command line does. ie if I exit from python, when I next go back into python all my old commands are remembered, just like the unix shell commands are.
(I spend a lot longer using the python command line; have tried a couple of dedicated python shells but find there are path issues that you don't get with sh> python. As I said, on Windows it just works the way you want.)
Interesting stuff... thanks for the clarification.
Hm, blank RSS feeds. Very useful.
I'm clearly not enough of a geek. Not only did I not get that the GGP was a joke, but couldn't understand a word of the whoosh. I do actually use Linux as my main dev environment, honest.
Anyone care to explain why I should care about the difference between different shells?
The need for this has been brewing for a while. Hope it does what it says on the tin.
Yes, that is a good reason for phones not to support flash in the same way as browsers do; to put it another way people are less likely to put up with pointless animated crap when screen space and battery life are at a premium.
Not a big vote of confidence for flash. But how long will it take web devs to figure out they can't assume flash support - especially with Adobe pumping out propaganda like this?
If only they had implemented their games using HTML and javascript...
For computers that have the primary drive that is not "C", flash won't install automatically.
Fixed that for ya.
HTML != XHTML
Only if you're certain you will never, ever want to look at any flash content.
I'd have to go in each tab and stop them or I get 10 videos playing at once.
This is such an annoyance with YouTube (and some other sites that start playing before you ask them too, such as MySpace) I'm amazed they haven't been swamped by complaints from users. Is it only people who use flash blocking of one type or another who open multiple tabs?
In most cases Flash only websites are the way to go
... if you don't want your site to be viewable on a phone.
Flash player 6 was installed by default with XP, not sure about Vista.
and I can count the number of times on one hand someone didn't have it installed - and most of the time it was because it was a clean Windows install.
So... is Flash included in XP or not?
I thought it was a reference to CP Ramanujam, who was famed for his intuitive insights. Trouble is, his intuition was wrong half the time, so is not much use in a yes/no situation.
But whatever arcane cogitations brought him to his conclusion, in this case the AC has probability on his side.
Of course - in some cases devices actually lacks Flash for one reason or another, but this is more on specialized devices and mobile devices...
Stop! You can no longer dismiss mobile devices as an insignificant niche. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK mobile carriers are offering cheap, all-you-can-eat (within reason) broadband. I am about to sign up for it, but none of the phones I've tried have a really excellent browser; even the iPhone doesn't support Flash properly (or at all, if you exclude video).
I am going for a Samsung Omnia, which has a version of Opera on it - that *ought* to be good enough for most things, but I just know will have to cope with stupid web developers who decided to make their site unnecessarily dependent on flash for some crucial bit of functionality, just as I currently stumble daily over sites who never considered that users might have javascript disabled (and apparently don't care whether the googlebot can access their content or not).
So the summary needs to be fixed.
That won't help if you're relying on Flash for any kind of functionality apart from video playback.
This may be true, but within a year or two a sizeable proportion of users will be accessing the web - most likely including your site - using phones. Many of these phones will not have full or any Flash support. In short: you can't rely on it, you can't even rely on javascript: you have to build a robust, HTML-only fallback.
NoScript is the second most popular Firefox extension. Nobody know how many users block javascript because most analytic tools rely on it. OTOH if they used flash's built in self-detection I would show up as a false negative, because I do have flash but only allow it to run selectively.
As for Adobe's claim: patently false - most mobiles here in the UK can access the internet, but only the very latest ones have flash support, and then usually only on selected sites. And I would make an educated guess that the UK has a higher proportion of cutting-edge phones than most places in the world.
I've only ever been able to manage a partial mammoth.
Sorry, I'll get my skins.
HINT: If you have local admin rights, you completely own the machine.
The suggestion is - and the same accusation was made about Vista - that this is not the case; ie that the highest level of access is only available to the system itself, not a user. I haven't seen conclusive evidence of this with Vista, but there have been a few occasions where I have wanted to move or replace a system file and no matter how many dialog boxes have asked for and got my agreement, ultimately the operation has been refused. But in each case I found a workaround that didn't involve disabling UAC, so it's probably just poor GUI implementation. Without details, it's hard to know what's going on here.
While it is quite shocking if there is something in the Windows 7 API that basically says AddFireWallException(myUrl), no sysadmin worth their salt should be relying on the built in Windows firewall anyway.