I Hate Firefox

nonpartisan

Oh and while I'm angry and ranting, why is it that people who block ads never have any fucking clue how the fucking Internet advertising industry fucking even works, and typically haven't even fucking heard of an ad exchange? Probably because people who actually know shit realize ads are harmless and don't block them like fucking dicks. Hey maybe inject some fucking knowledge into your fucking brain for once, you ignorant asshole?

You do realize this could be the template for any rant?

Why is it that (group) never have any fucking clue (technology) fucking even works, and typically haven't even fucking heard of (technology)? Probably because people who actually know shit realize (technology) [is/are] (condition).

For example:

Why is it that computer techs never have any fucking clue how disk defrag and virus scans fucking even work, and typically haven't even fucking heard of bad hardware? Probably because people who actually know shit realize disk defrags and virus scans are not the automatic fix-it panacea when there is an actual hardware problem. (I had diagnosed a bad power supply on a desktop power supply -- the +12V line was dropping -- and an official IT tech [I wasn't officially part of the IT group at the time] told me it had a virus.)

Or:

Why is it that programmers never have any fucking clue how modern networking fucking even works, and typically haven't even fucking heard of routed networks? Probably because people who actually know shit realize routed networks are the best, modern way to provide redundancy in a network so that all servers can be on different broadcast domains. (Keeping things on the same Layer 2 domain is so '90s. There is absolutely no excuse for it these days.)

I'll keep this template for future reference.

Mason_Wheeler

@nonpartisan said:

You do realize this could be the template for any rant?

Oh man, now you've got me wanting to go through, collect a bunch of Blakeyrants, feed them into a Markov chain generator, and see what comes out the other end!

Scarlet_Manuka

@Mason Wheeler said:

@nonpartisan said:
You do realize this could be the template for any rant?
Oh man, now you've got me wanting to go through, collect a bunch of Blakeyrants, feed them into a Markov chain generator, and see what comes out the other end!

There's already a random tag script floating around; can a random blakeyrant generator be far behind?

PJH

@Severity One said:

And they still don't provide a 64-bits version, because they don't see the point. Never mind what the "customer" wants.

You appear to give the impression that 64bit versions of Firefox are unpossible..

[pjh@thinkpad-pjh tmp]$ file `which firefox`
/usr/bin/firefox: symbolic link to `../../usr/lib64/firefox-11.0/firefox'
[pjh@thinkpad-pjh tmp]$ file /usr/lib64/firefox-11.0/firefox
/usr/lib64/firefox-11.0/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped

ASheridan

@morbiuswilters said:

Adblock is for immoral shitheads.

We've been through this before. The meaning of immoral is "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality." Clearly, if AdBlock even exists and is widely used (which it does and is) then it's accepted by society, so blocking the adverts is not immoral. Advert creators only have themselves to blame, by creating shitty ads in the first place, causing developers to create methods to block them. It's been a game of oneupmanship since, but it's not in any way immoral.

Personally, I use FlashBlock, because it gets rid of the adverts I wouldn't be interested in and stops them fucking with my browsing, and I can ignore the others myself easily enough.

ASheridan

@fire2k said:

And if you think Microsoft's implementation of CSS is superior, you need a reality check. I still get the urge to strangle somebody whenever float:left breaks everything in every IE older than 9, and in the compatibility mode.

I totally agree. Just look at IE9's imnplementation of CSS outlines, completely screwed up when you try applying them to objects that are next to each other without space.

ASheridan

@morbiuswilters said:

@Lorne Kates said:
I'm wondering if it's Flash + XP, since all the computers I use are still on XP. I'm getting a Windows 7 machine at work, so I'll check on that.

I recall Flash on Firefox/Linux stuttering a lot, too. It was unusable in fullscreen mode, which really interfered with my ~~porn~~ ~~important work-related teleconferencing~~ okay it was really porn. I attributed this to Flash on Linux being more of a cruel joke than an actual software product, but maybe it was Firefox's fault. Chrome plays Flash beautifully.

I can tell you it's Flash. I use only Linux at home, and Flash is a pita. It regularly crashes Chrome, and I don't just mean crashes a tab, it crashes the whole bloody browser, which I was under the impression shouldn't happen in Chrome so often. It also crashes in Firefox sometimes, but tends not to take the whole browser with it. And before you ask, yes, I keep my machine up-to-date with regards to browser and plugin updates. I believe the Chrome crashing thing is an unfortunate mix of the Flash plugin (32-bit) and an enforcing policy in SELinux on Fedora, but I've just not had the time to really track it down right now.

ASheridan

@Severity One said:

And they still don't provide a 64-bits version, because they don't see the point.

Erm, are you sure? I'm pretty sure I've got 64-bit Fx installed on my laptop...

PJH

@ASheridan said:

@Severity One said:
And they still don't provide a 64-bits version, because they don't see the point.
Erm, are you sure? I'm pretty sure I've got 64-bit Fx installed on my laptop...

I think they're talking about the (apparent) lack of pre-compiled binaries for 64bit systems on their download page.

ASheridan

@Mason Wheeler said:

@morbiuswilters said:
Right, except you're not blocking harmful ads, you're blocking all ads because you are an unethical shithead.
...you'll latch on to this flimsy excuse to rationalize the decision you already made to block ads.
Wow, we're just full of wild, completely unsupported assumptions this afternoon. For the record, I don't actually have adblock installed. I was simply pointing out that taking such a hard-line stance on the subject is a bit short-sighted.
@morbiuswilters said:
Here's a thought: maybe people should actually pay for the shit they use to compensate the people who did the work.
First, you're assuming a causal relationship that does not necessarily exist (and usually does not, in fact.) When a published work is sold, the money does not go to the people who actually did the work of creating it; it goes to the publisher. Creators get screwed seven ways from Sunday. Why do you think so many content creators are publicly asking, even *begging* people to pirate their work?
Second, you're quite naively assuming that there's only one effect from piracy, and that that one effect is negative. Neil Gaiman used to believe so too, until he got a bit more experience in real-world causality. It was a real eye-opener for him when he started to understand the rest of the picture. You really should check out his thoughts on the subject.

It's worth noting that some paywalls that have been added to certain news sites in an attempt to stop the "immoral pirates" from "stealing" their content has actually resulted in lilttle change in revenue through the site but a loss of visitors. Now, one could say that that was successful, as it's stopped the "theft" of content, but in reality, all you've done is push people away to other sources. Just read some of the articles on techdirt.com and you'll see what I mean explained by people far better suited to it than I.

dhromed

@morbiuswilters said:

It's pretty similar to Firebug, except:

Ok good.

@morbiuswilters said:

Network tab: Firebug has one, but Chrome gives more detail in drill-down for an object, such as the cookies sent, a preview of the object and a timing tab which shows a breakdown of network transfer time, etc..

FB has exactly this, but I'll investigate more on the subtle differences.

dhromed

@Lorne Kates said:

I'm wondering if it's Flash + XP,

I'm on XP. Maybe you just need a better computer.

dhromed

@morbiuswilters said:

@Severity One said:
But it has to be said: it's damn stable.

My multitude of experience would prove otherwise.

My multitude of experience says otherwise.

I really wonder how it's possible for you to have this completely different UX.

@morbiuswilters said:

It seems like most people here don't use the browser very much, though,

Yes, I don't use my main browser very much. That must be it.

dhromed

@Lorne Kates said:

On a side note, after having spent the weekend cleaning some malware form my wife's computer, I'd like to extend a personal "fuck you" to the Java Plug-in, and personally encourage each and everyone one of you to uninstall it from any computer you have access to.

In other news, Firefox and Thunderbird now pop up a one-time dialog offering to disable the java plugin due to "stability issues". Which is kinda cool.

dhromed

@nonpartisan said:

You do realize this could be the template for any rant?

+1 wba

dhromed

Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?

Cassidy

@morbiuswilters said:

Linux is my primary OS so it's where I have the most experience. That said, I've run 32-bit and 64-bit versions

What distro, as a matter of interest? (just curious; looking at dropping Mint onto my new tower)

@morbiuswilters said:

Of course, by that point Netscape was dying and their only hope was to take the ground-up rewrite that doomed them and shit it directly into the mouths of the Open Sores community where it would torment handsome, intelligent, unappreciated, handsome developers whose only recourse was letting their frustrations out in a forum post

Yea. I remember reading an article about Netscape/AOL fuckups on some website. I ought to hunt down this forum you speak of; it sounds like a welcoming crowd of like-minded people.

@blakeyrat said:

@toothrot said:
Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default

When the fuck did that happen? I hate AdBlock slightly less now.

Fairly recent turn of events - I remember reading about it Christmas last year, so only been a "2012 development" (although I always thought ABP had whitelists - permit lists - to cater for gamers that couldn't read forums if their site detected blocked ads).

The article reported that people were in uproar not about this feature, but that the whitelist was pre-populated with sites of ABP's choice. It's a pity that these lists aren't user-configurable and that people who disliked the default choices could easily remove them -- oh, wait...

Cassidy

@rosko said:

Regarding your rant on Opera, sure, hardly anyone uses it, but still more than IE7 in some circumstances

I despise these "but nobody uses it" opinions (I know it's not ytours, but I'll expand on your point above there). Morbs can show evidence that very few visitors to his site use Opera, but we performed the same analysis on our company website: I pointed out that it only worked in IE and my team leader pointed out from web stats that a high percentage of our customer base use IE and catering to a niche market was wasted effort. I pointed out the flipside: anyone NOT using IE would never be our customer because the site wouldn't work.

Then many academic institutions began using Opera, and couldn't use our website. Then IE7 and IE8 emerged, and it seems that our site ONLY worked in IE6. Then along came the iPhone and iPad, and none would show our site properly.

And then the realisation: "hardly anyone uses it TODAY, but tomorrow could be a different matter".

Cassidy

@morbiuswilters said:

If Flash ads are such a problem install Flashblock

Erm.. how is this different? You're ranting against people that block ads, then advocate installing something that... blocks ads. Of the flash variety, admittedly, but doesn't this feature on your DNU list? (not wanting to stir things up, just interested in your POV that switches fence sides)

@El_Heffe said:

As for ad-blocking in general, all the people screaming that blocking ads is immoral, unethical and kills puppies never admit the reason that ad-blocking exists in the first place. It isn't because somebody decided they want to be an asshole and fuck over people who run websites. Programs like AdBlock were created for one reason and one reason only -- because of all the assholes who cram their websites so full of annoying bullshit that it's impossible concentrate on the actual content, aka the only reason I came to your shitty website.

I thought this stuff had already been done to death over in another thread, but it seems not....

Cassidy

@ASheridan said:

I believe the Chrome crashing thing is an unfortunate mix of the Flash plugin (32-bit) and an enforcing policy in SELinux on Fedora, but I've just not had the time to really track it down right now.

I had a similar issue - a wrapper around a 32-bit flash plugin for 64-bit FF on Meerkat but then a 64-bit version was released that's much more stable:

user@logan:~$ dpkg -p flashplugin-installer
Package: flashplugin-installer
Priority: optional
Section: contrib/web
Installed-Size: 184
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Architecture: amd64
Source: flashplugin-nonfree
Version: 11.1.102.55ubuntu0.10.10.1
</ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>

roelforg

@Cassidy said:

@morbiuswilters said:
If Flash ads are such a problem
install Flashblock

Erm.. how is this different? You're
ranting against people that block ads, then advocate installing
something that... blocks ads. Of the flash variety, admittedly, but
doesn't this feature on your DNU list? (not wanting to stir things up,
just interested in your POV that switches fence sides)

Why install yet another plugin when you can go to the plugin-panel and click on the "Disable" button for flash itself?

@Cassidy said:

@El_Heffe said:
As for ad-blocking in general, all the people screaming that blocking ads is immoral, unethical and kills puppies never admit the reason that ad-blocking exists in the first place. It isn't because somebody decided they want to be an asshole and fuck over people who run websites. Programs like AdBlock were created for one reason and one reason only -- because of all the assholes who cram their websites so full of annoying bullshit that it's impossible concentrate on the actual content, aka the only reason I came to your shitty website.

I thought this stuff had already been done to death over in another thread, but it seems not....

I don't care about ads as long as they don't disrupt me.

So i disabled flash (getting rid of those cpu hogging, focusstealing, huge flash ads) and added a filter to block animated gifs from the most common ad providers.

ASheridan

@Cassidy said:

I had a similar issue - a wrapper around a 32-bit flash plugin for 64-bit FF on Meerkat but then a 64-bit version was released that's much more stable:
user@logan:~$ dpkg -p flashplugin-installer
Package: flashplugin-installer
Priority: optional
Section: contrib/web
Installed-Size: 184
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers 
Architecture: amd64
Source: flashplugin-nonfree
Version: 11.1.102.55ubuntu0.10.10.1

Unfortunately, that's not the problem I have, as my home machine is 32-bit all the way. My laptop is 64-bit though (albeit with a 32-bit Flash plugin and 64-bit browsers), and works fine with Chrome and Flash. The only major difference between the two is my desktop is Fedora 14 and my laptop is Fedora15. Maybe it's a difference in the kernels and the corresponding SELinux kernel modules on the two machines that is the reason for one working and not the other. It's not a huge pain though, as Chrome isn't my main browser.

ASheridan

@roelforg said:

Why install yet another plugin when you can go to the plugin-panel and click on the "Disable" button for flash itself?

It just makes it easier to block Flash on a per-site basis. Oddly enough, some Flash content does still get through, I can only guess it's to do with the way it gets added maybe? For those sites, if the content is annoying enough, I'll add a dead entry for it in my hosts file. Sure it takes time for me to do that, but it's the level I feel I have to resort to when ads are trying to mess with my user experience online.

Do they not realise people browse with more than one window/tab these days? When I've got a few tabs open and all are trying to blare music at me, or some other annoying 'jingle' then all I get is a cacophony of noise. Or what about the ads that decide that I didn't really want to look at the content and instead attempt to force me to fill in a mailing list form? Thanks, but no thanks. Or the ads that have been developed by some idiot straight out of college and result in Flash going overtime on my CPU? The thing is, people take notice of certain types of ads, and one of the main reason to take notice of something is when it's either exceptionally brilliant or really fucking annoying. It's the same with TV talent shows. People don't watch them for the mediocre rubbish, they want to see the best and the worst of what society has to offer, and mostly it's garbage that we can point and laugh at.

rosko

I just remembered another use case I had for Firefox: websites that totally fuck up in Chrome. I don't know what it's like today, but in early 2011 I had some VMs I ran on Rackspace and their control panel was a total PITA in Chrome. I had to fire up Firefox just to start / stop / delete etc. VM instances without it wandering off somewhere else in the universe. So as bloody annoying as Firefox is since they started on this "accelerated" track (4.0+), I still use the bastard from time to time for specific tasks.

As to why: well, I vaguely recall some odd event sequences in Webkit that all other browsers had no issue with (something to do with focus and click vs mousedown/mouseup) so maybe some sites rely on specific event sequences that Webkit doesn't comply with. Yawn... glass empty, must resolve that issue now...

boomzilla

@Lorne Kates said:

1) AdBlock has "Disabled on this page" and "Disable on [domain]" options. I've used them to allow blocked elements on blocked sites before. I don't know for sure if it allows 3rd party elements through, so I may or may not be right.

For the benefit of the hysterical, here's what the AdBlock plus menu looks like for me:

It pretty much works as you'd expect. I suppose that the blacklisting could be even more finely tuned, requiring you to apply blacklisting of ad stuff by site, but that seems like overkill.

dhromed

@ASheridan said:

When I've got a few tabs open and all are trying to blare music at me

I know that Wikia is particularly stupid in its ad-ridden badness, but generally, sound-ads are rather rare. What sites do you visit that routinely have audio in their ads?

dhromed

@boomzilla said:

Ah, I see the problem: your font rendering mechanism is fucked. You should have that looked at.

boomzilla

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:

Ah, I see the problem: your font rendering mechanism is fucked. You should have that looked at.

Uh, what?

mrsparkyman

@boomzilla said:

@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Ah, I see the problem: your font rendering mechanism is fucked. You should have that looked at.

Uh, what?

Your letters. They are all blurried.

boomzilla

@mrsparkyman said:

@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
Ah, I see the problem: your font rendering mechanism is fucked. You should have that looked at.

Uh, what?

Your letters. They are all blurried.

Hmm...I'm not seeing it. Actually, when I first posted, I thought so, too, but that was apparently an artifact of having TDWTF permanently zoomed in a little bit.

dhromed

@boomzilla said:

an artifact of having TDWTF permanently zoomed in a little bit.

That'll do it as well, yes.

But if you look closely, you'll notice that every curved line is a mess while every straight edge is supercrisp. Check out the differences between ".co" versus "m", or the difference between "Filt" and the subsequent "e".

Are you using a CRT or cheap-ass LCD or unaligned LCD , by any chance?

Anketam

@morbiuswilters said:

@esoterik said:
broken or malicious software
Does Linux count?

Yes

Shagen

WeKit, the plucky pretender. I knew the young WebKit, by the name of KHTML, as it was trained in the employ of a Konqueror. From this meeting, I saw that the youngling showed promise.
WebKit and Gecko, like many brothers, are at once enemies, friends, competitors and allies. Both of them share an opposition to the old order. Gecko is from a respected lineage, and has ancestors who once bore the crown. Webkit is young, dynamic and perhaps more brash; yet has learnt much from the wisdom of Gecko. Gecko is not so proud as to reject the teachings of the younger WebKit, and may prove worth yet unrecognised.

The house of Microsoft has grown complacent, and has lost much ground to these usurpers, but should not be underestimated. All have learned from that old wanderer called Opera, yet each have chosen their own path. If Gecko and WebKit can maintain an alliance, the forces of Microsoft could well be overcome.

Lorne Kates

@dhromed said:

@morbiuswilters said:
Network tab: Firebug has one, but Chrome gives more detail in drill-down for an object, such as the cookies sent, a preview of the object and a timing tab which shows a breakdown of network transfer time, etc..
FB has exactly this, but I'll investigate more on the subtle differences.

Does Chrome have something similiar to FireQuery? It's a plug-in for Firebug that allows gives you a bunch of information about jQuery objects, some extra jQuery intellisense, etc.

nonpartisan

@dhromed said:

Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?

It's been a month since the last religion debate . . .

(Before anyone responds: kidding!!)

nonpartisan

@morbiuswilters said:

My multitude of experience would prove otherwise.

As was recently hammered into my head, individual experience doesn't prove shit. I can't replicate your problems either under Windows or Linux. I use both IE and Firefox every day, with Firefox being the one most heavily used. I've not counted the number of tabs I usually have open, but enough that I periodically go "Oh shit I've got a lot of stuff open" and spend about a minute closing all the tabs I no longer need. My desktop is 64-bit Windows 7 with 8 GB RAM. My laptop is 64-bit Ubuntu 11.04 with 8 GB RAM.

boomzilla

@dhromed said:

Are you using a CRT or cheap-ass LCD or unaligned LCD , by any chance?

I have no idea what an unaligned LCD is. I definitely don't have a super LCD (nor a CRT). It could easily be my Mk1 Eyeballs, but I cannot see what you're talking about when the zoom is off.

Cassidy

@roelforg said:

@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If Flash ads are such a problem install Flashblock

Erm.. how is this different? You're ranting against people that block ads, then advocate installing something that... blocks ads. Of the flash variety, admittedly, but doesn't this feature on your DNU list? (not wanting to stir things up, just interested in your POV that switches fence sides)
Why install yet another plugin when you can go to the plugin-panel and click on the "Disable" button for flash itself?

Firstly, that disables flash everywhere. The point of flashblock is that every flash object is replaced with a "play" button and you can simply click that to play just that object, or can whitelist a site (eg: youtube) so that flashblock won't bother with its substitution. So hope that answers your question about why someone would install yet another plugin.

Secondly, you didn't answer my question, but it was actually aimed at Morbs.

Cassidy

@ASheridan said:

Do they not realise people browse with more than one window/tab these days? When I've got a few tabs open and all are trying to blare music at me, or some other annoying 'jingle' then all I get is a cacophony of noise

I've not heard of flash spontaneously blaring music at me of its own accord.

The only time that has happened is when open a link in a new tab which contains embedded video, and it starts playing before I've switched to that tab. But that's flash blaring because I've initiated the action (opened multiple tabs), not because flash decided to.

Shagen

@nonpartisan said:

@dhromed said:
Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?

It's been a month since the last religion debate . . .
(Before anyone responds: kidding!!)

Everybody knows that the best browser is Emacs.

nonpartisan

@Shagen said:

@nonpartisan said:
@dhromed said:
Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?

It's been a month since the last religion debate . . .
(Before anyone responds: kidding!!)

Everybody knows that the best browser is Emacs.

Heathen.

I use Firefox and IE cuz I have to at work. Personal browsing I use wget.

mrsparkyman

@nonpartisan said:

@Shagen said:
@nonpartisan said:
@dhromed said:
Let's push this thread to 4 pages, alright?

It's been a month since the last religion debate . . .
(Before anyone responds: kidding!!)

Everybody knows that the best browser is Emacs.
Heathen.
I use Firefox and IE cuz I have to at work. Personal browsing I use wget.

Blasphemer.

The only right way is to curl everything and grep it later.

blakeyrat

@dhromed said:

@Lorne Kates said:
On a side note, after having spent the weekend cleaning some malware form my wife's computer, I'd like to extend a personal "fuck you" to the Java Plug-in, and personally encourage each and everyone one of you to uninstall it from any computer you have access to.
In other news, Firefox and Thunderbird now pop up a one-time dialog offering to disable the java plugin due to "stability issues". Which is kinda cool.

Wow you mean they developed a new safety feature, an innova--

Oh, they just ripped-off Chrome and IE again.

blakeyrat

@Cassidy said:

@morbiuswilters said:
If Flash ads are such a problem
install Flashblock

Erm.. how is this different? You're
ranting against people that block ads, then advocate installing
something that... blocks ads. Of the flash variety, admittedly, but
doesn't this feature on your DNU list? (not wanting to stir things up,
just interested in your POV that switches fence sides)

Flashblock doesn't block ads. It blocks Flash.

If you don't know the difference, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to communicate simple concepts like that in clicks and whistles or whatever moron language you speak.

blakeyrat

@boomzilla said:

It pretty much works as you'd expect. I suppose that the blacklisting could be even more finely tuned, requiring you to apply blacklisting of ad stuff by site, but that seems like overkill.

Yes, "overkill". As opposed to "blocking every ad, everywhere, on every site, by default." Because obviously the latter is not overkill.

I know you're Boomzilla and thus already firmly in my "this guy is an idiot" file, but somehow my opinion of people who block ads is going down more and more by the post.

The_Assimilator

I block ads because I only have a 384k line and nowadays it seems like most sites serve more ads than actual content. If I didn't block the ads, I literally would never get to see the content I'm actually there for.

But even if I did have an uncapped 50Meg line, I'd probably still block ads. If a site needs user income to keep functioning, it should consider options like subscriptions or paywalls or merchandising.

@dhromed said:

@boomzilla said:
an artifact of having TDWTF permanently zoomed in a little bit.

That'll do it as well, yes.
But if you look closely, you'll notice that every curved line is a mess while every straight edge is supercrisp. Check out the differences between ".co" versus "m", or the difference between "Filt" and the subsequent "e".
Are you using a CRT or cheap-ass LCD or unaligned LCD , by any chance?

No, he's using Linux, which has notoriously bad font rendering.

boomzilla

@blakeyrat said:

@boomzilla said:
It pretty much works as you'd expect. I suppose that the blacklisting could be even more finely tuned, requiring you to apply blacklisting of ad stuff by site, but that seems like overkill.

Yes, "overkill". As opposed to "blocking every ad, everywhere, on every site, by default." Because obviously the latter is not overkill.

Good lord, even for an idiot like you, I'd have thought you'd recognize that I meant overkill usability wise. I mean, if one site uses a really annoying ad provider, does that provider really get any better when it's served from a different page? Look, I know that your salary is ultimately based on internet advertising, so I understand your jihad against ad blockers, but that doesn't mean you need to disengage your brain.

@blakeyrat said:

I know you're Boomzilla and thus already firmly in my "this guy is an idiot" file, but somehow my opinion of people who block ads is going down more and more by the post.

Thank you for admitting that you can't comprehend what you read. OK, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, you're just excellent at writing non-sequitors.

boomzilla

@The_Assimilator said:

No, he's using Linux, which has notoriously bad font rendering.

So, your theory is that I can't see what dhromed sees in the same image because of your impression of the reputation of the OS I'm using? At least his theory is plausible.

blakeyrat

@boomzilla said:

Good lord, even for an idiot like you, I'd have thought you'd recognize that I meant overkill usability wise.

... what? Who was talking about usability? Certainly not the post you were responding to.

Maybe in the future you should verify you're actually replying to the thread and not just to the hallucinatory dancing gremlins in your brain that whisper dark thoughts while you sleep.

The_Assimilator

@boomzilla said:

@The_Assimilator said:
No, he's using Linux, which has notoriously bad font rendering.

So, your theory is that I can't see what dhromed sees in the same image because of your impression of the reputation of the OS I'm using? At least his theory is plausible.

Linux's shitty font rendering is not a myth, it's a fact. My new theory is that you've become so used to said shitty font rendering that you can't tell it's shitty anymore.