Spartan, what are you doing?
-
So the area that I can grab to move the window, right click it to get extra options, shows me the name of the application (and / or opened files etc.) and houses the buttons I use to interact with it is non-functional?
Geez, no, I already told you that. More than once.
We can argue about whether the first draft of the Spartan UI is bad or not, but there is, in fact, a functional title bar.
-
Geez, no, I already told you that. More than once.
I know Discourse can be confusing, but I neither quoted nor responded to you. Am I allowed to discuss stuff with other people in your thread?
a functional title bar.
Eh, I have problems with it, but I guess so. Honestly, if I can turn the "old" titlebar back on, I'm fine with it. I can't do that in Gnome 3, for example.
-
So the area that I can grab to move the window, right click it to get extra options, shows me the name of the application (and / or opened files etc.) and houses the buttons I use to interact with it is non-functional?
You mean the area that wasn't removed?
-
You mean the area that wasn't removed?
Just shrunk down, moved to the right and (basing this off of how current versions of IE look like) doesn't look like a titlebar?
Yeah, that one.
-
I know Discourse can be confusing, but I neither quoted nor responded to you. Am I allowed to discuss stuff with other people in your thread?
NO. WHAAAARGARBL.
-
Just shrunk down, moved to the right and (basing this off of how current versions of IE look like) doesn't look like a titlebar?
It does actually look like a regular Windows 10 title bar except for the tabs and the lack of an application name. When I get back to work I'll try to provide some better screenshots.
-
But if I install it on my Debian through Wine, will it look native then? Will it? WILL IT? NO, THE GOALPOSTS ARE MINE, YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM!
...
I mean, that would be appreciated, thanks. I probably won't use it myself (M$! Windblows! <current M$ leadership figure> performs fellatio on goats!), but I am curious.
-
I side with you. This is not smart: URL's are case sensitive.
That includes the %2F versus %2f parts (despite opinions to the contrary above) because those are interpreted by the web server, not by the browser or internet; a given server might not actually be translating that according to the normal rules. For example, I've seen a parameter like this in one of the products we use:
QBE=%SEARCH%
. "QBE" is, of course, "Query By Example", and the string content is not escaped characters but LIKE predicate wildcards.(And, yes, I know it should be coded
QBE=%25SEARCH%25
but that's my point--products don't always follow the standard.)It's not hard imagining that search to be
QBE=%2F%
, and in a query '%2F% is not the same as `%2f%'.I wouldn't like my browser to show a URL different than what is actually being used: I would expect that to offer bigger security risk than name spoofing.
-
pound-sign-everything's-a-phone
It took me a while to realise you didn't mean
£everything's-a-phone
-
You guys remember when Chrome removed the http:// in the URL bar? You remember how many conniption fits there were around here? "But you need the protocol!!! OMG!" You remember how, as a result of the change, NOTHING BAD HAPPENED EVER?
I'd link to the thread, but Alex deleted it.
Anyway, point is, calm the fuck down. Learn the two zen rules of software:
- The display layer is ONLY for display (i.e. just because it looks lowercase doesn't mean the web server is being given the all-lowercase version)
- Developers aren't going to release a product if it's as broken as your fantasy version seems to be
-
not in his bikeshedding schedule already
Jeff needs a new word: bikeshedule
Now we can have a nice long argument about whether or not to put a c in it.
-
I can always use Alt + click to move windows here, but Windows users are fucked. Even in MS added something like that, everyone will have to learn it immediately. BTW, I'm not required to use it in Gnome / Cinnamon / KDE, I just find it convenient.
There's also right-clicking on the window button in the panel and selecting Move, which I use occasionally when I can't be arsed getting up to touch the keyboard.
Both that and Alt-drag let me move the title bar above the top of the screen, which is quite useful for letting a YouTube movie play at small size while doing other things with the rest of the screen.
Imagine my lack of surprise to find that not only does Chromium's custom title bar have window controls inconsistent with every other window on my desktop, but that it nobbles the above-top move as well. Fuck you, Google. Firefox may be slavishly following your every look and feel misfeature, but at least it still has extensions available that let me make it look how I want it to.
-
So the area that I can grab to move the window, right click it to get extra options, shows me the name of the application (and / or opened files etc.) and houses the buttons I use to interact with it is non-functional?
Yes. Nine out of ten focus group users surveyed were completely unaware that windows even have title bars.
Filed under: window chrome is a barrier to Grumpy Cat
-
Firefox may be slavishly following your every look and feel misfeature, but at least it still has extensions available that let me make it look how I want it to.
Chrome options:
-
You guys remember when Chrome removed the http:// in the URL bar? You remember how many conniption fits there were around here? "But you need the protocol!!! OMG!" You remember how, as a result of the change, NOTHING BAD HAPPENED EVER?
Mozilla did the same thing shortly thereafter. I had to turn the protocol display back on (fortunately they added an about:config option to make that possible) so that students could still get to the http: version of https: sites blocked by our SSL whitelist.
-
-
Ah, nice! Restores correct window-move behavior as well. Thanks!
-
Ah. You see, first you install a proper OS...
-
had to turn the protocol display back on (fortunately they added an about:config option to make that possible) so that students could still get to the http: version of https: sites blocked by our SSL whitelist.
So another place where FF is an utter piece of shit? In chrome you can type the protocol even though it hides it afterwards.
-
2) Developers aren't going to release a product if it's as broken as your fantasy version seems to be
Who are you and what have you done with @blakeyrat?
-
In chrome you can type the protocol even though it hides it afterwards.
Same with FF.
-
-
switch to linux to get the other options?
Is switching browsers not enough to satisfy you?
-
me? yes absolutely!
@onyx? apparently not.
-
In chrome you can type the protocol even though it hides it afterwards.
Firefox's behavior is the same.
The point is that telling people to try deleting the s from https: if they can't use the https: version achieves nothing if they can't even see the https: in the first place.
-
The point is that telling people to try deleting the s from https: if they can't use the https: version achieves nothing if they can't even see the https: in the first place.
Both Chrome and Firefox hidehttp
only; they both showhttps
all the time ;)
-
-
It's not him, he's dealing with students.
-
me? yes absolutely!
@onyx? apparently not.
My ultimate plan is to get all of you bastards to use Linux so every time I have a problem I can just ask here and there will be a big enough critical mass of users that I will get an answer instantly.
-
oooh. crafty and evil. I like it!
-
that I will get an answer instantly.
Yeah, and it'll be like any other Linux-using forums: half the answers will be people telling you you're using the wrong distro, or you're stupid for not realizing how much better the Linux Way is.
-
Perhaps. But at least I'll be insulted by proper dickweeds, not those wannabes on other forums.
-
I demand a Proper Dickweed badge!
-
-
Yeah, and it'll be like any other Linux-using forums: half the answers will be people telling you you're using the wrong distro, or you're stupid for not realizing how much better the Linux Way is.
Sure, but there's a trick to it. All you have to do is post saying "It's impossible to do X in Linux". You'll get a bunch of answers telling you it is possible, with detailed instructions.
-
All you have to do is post saying "It's impossible to do X in Linux". You'll get a bunch of answers telling you it is possible, with detailed instructions.
So, does that mean if I post "It's impossible to bring about world peace in Linux", we'll finally get world peace? :)
-
You'll get a bunch of answers telling you it is possible, with detailed instructions.
..which will all be in something that superficially resembles English, but probably aren't actually followable by someone who's not already deeply knowledgeable.
-
So, does that mean if I post "It's impossible to bring about world peace in Linux", we'll finally get world peace?
"You don't need that."
-
"My distro is perfectly capable of world peace, we just have to kill the heretics who use this mostly identical distro first"
-
"There is a working implementation of World Peace for Gentoo. Just follow these 1578 easy steps to compile it from source."
-
Meh, it will get added to SystemD sooner or later anyways.
-
Now we can have a nice long argument about whether or not to put a c in it.
Wen evereewon iz yoozing fonetiks too reit dhe Inglish langwaje, dhen wee kan leev dh 'c' aot. Not leest beekoz dh leter 'c' woent exist.
-
I think you just accidentally invented Dutch.
-
[url=http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-bad-ideas-thread/254/5685]I didn't just invent it[/url].
Although I have improved it some. The original was primarily invented by my USAlien friend, who insisted that short a (as in rat) and short o (as in rot) could be represented by the same letter because apparently USAlien no longer distinguishes the two, even though the other versions of English do, so he used o to represent long o (as in rote). There was no need to do that since there were plenty of double-vowels unused including both of oe and oa. My new, improved Fonetiks 2.0 uses all the single vowels to represent their own short sounds, and oe for the long o sound.
-
The main problem is that English has quite a lot more vowel and consonant sounds than it has letters.
-
digits don't have case
Arabic digits don't have case, but other number systems may well have upper and lower case digits.
Look for example U+2160 (ROMAN NUMERAL ONE:
Ⅰ
) which is upper case. Its lower case counterpart is U+2170 (SMALL ROMAN NUMERAL ONE:ⅰ
).For your case, that doesn't matter though.
-
Small point: when Roman numerals were invented, there was no such thing as lower-case; that didn't arrive until the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. So Roman numerals having a lower-case form is, technically, incorrect; they're actually 'medieval Roman numerals'.
-
-
@OffByOne said:
Arabic digits don't have case
BZZT, wrong:
That's a typographical thing. The word "case" in that context doesn't mean the same thing as is means in the context I used it in.
I should have worded that more clearly, the way I wrote it was very ambiguous indeed.
-
The word "case" in that context doesn't mean the same thing as is means in the context I used it in.
What definition are you using then? Because the only definition of "case" on characters I know if is the typographical one...