Representative diff
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Soviut said:
@El_Heffe said:
I wish Chrome or IE had a better UI and more customizability. I would swtich.Leave, come back a few minutes later, hit refresh a few times to get Firefox to display the updated page
I spotted your problem. You're still using Firefox despite it not being 2008 anymore.
You really think Firefox is more customizable than Chrome? Open your time pod, man. That stopped being true several years ago.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
You really think Firefox is more customizable than Chrome? Open your time pod, man. That stopped being true several years ago.
Well, at least you are living up to your username. I haven't used Chrome in a while so I spent a few minutes Googling just to be sure. "How do I change [whatever] in Chrome".And nothing has changed. The answer is still "you can't".
-
@El_Heffe said:
I got so ticked off at Firefox a while ago that I decided I was never going to use it again, but I still do because there are some things Chrome just doesn't do as well. I have two main problems with it. One plug-in I use often broke quite a few versions ago, and the authors' response is, basically, It's Chrome's fault. It works in all the other browsers; use one of them.@mikeTheLiar said:
You really think Firefox is more customizable than Chrome? Open your time pod, man. That stopped being true several years ago.
Well, at least you are living up to your username. I haven't used Chrome in a while so I spent a few minutes Googling just to be sure. "How do I change [whatever] in Chrome".And nothing has changed. The answer is still "you can't".
The other thing I don't like about Chrome is that it does not give me as much control over cookies. There is nothing even close to Firefox's "ask me every time" option.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Soviut said:
@El_Heffe said:
I wish Chrome or IE had a better UI and more customizability. I would swtich.Leave, come back a few minutes later, hit refresh a few times to get Firefox to display the updated page
I spotted your problem. You're still using Firefox despite it not being 2008 anymore.
That had become my position after the first few rounds of the rapid-release insanity. Since finding the ESR versions, the productivity-killing surprises have been reduced to a tolerable rate again and I no longer have anything even close to a compelling reason to switch. In my experience (which I fully accept will not be everybody's experience) Firefox straight out of the box does stupid irritating things at a lower rate than Chrome and a far lower rate than IE7-11, and Firefox fitted with Adblock Plus, NoSquint, NoScript, GreaseMonkey, Stylish and Net Usage Item is positively pleasant.
-
@flabdablet said:
Firefox straight out of the box does stupid irritating things at a lower rate than Chrome and a far lower rate than IE7-11,
These days, Firefox "right out of the box" sucks just as bad as all the other browsers. The difference is that I can quickly and easily configure Firefox to be more to my liking. The other ones, not so much. Sadly, both Chrome and Firefox developers seem to be arrogant pricks who don't give a shit about what users think. But Firefox had more configurability built in right from the start so it has a slight advanage.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
The other thing I don't like about Chrome is that it does not give me as much control over cookies. There is nothing even close to Firefox's "ask me every time" option.
I tried for a while and there's nothing quite as annoying as the dialog for every page.
So I said fuck it, accept all cookies.
Also, so far, Firefox is the only one still that has text-only zoom, which as a visual aid is superior to full zoom under most circumstances save some comic reading.
-
@dhromed said:
Also, so far, Firefox is the only one still that has text-only zoom, which as a visual aid is superior to full zoom under most circumstances save some comic reading.
The current Safari on OSX has it too. (No idea at all which browser had it first; just injecting some facts here.)
-
@flabdablet said:
NoSquint,
Firefox out of the box kind of already does this adequately, but NoSquint is more advanced, obviously. Maybe I'll check it out.
@flabdablet said:
Net Usage Item
I don't understand what this does or how it makes FFX more pleasant.
-
@dkf said:
@dhromed said:
Also, so far, Firefox is the only one still that has text-only zoom, which as a visual aid is superior to full zoom under most circumstances save some comic reading.
The current Safari on OSX has it too. (No idea at all which browser had it first; just injecting some facts here.)Cool, but
A) Safari is a laughably unusable browser
B) I'm on Windows
-
Firefox is getting worse and worse, but, in my opinion, is still the best for web dev. Chrome's plugins are fast catching up, but the combination of Web Developer Toolbar, Firebug, and Flash Tracer* makes testing websites/apps much easier than Chrome.
I use Chrome for everything else though, except for Facebook, for which I use Safari. This separates my real account from my numerous work-related fake accounts used in other browsers. Why Safari? Because no-one sane uses Safari, so I don't need to test with Safari. Also, it kind of suits Facebook: a shitty browser for a shitty product.- Yes. Flash. We're actionscripting it up like it's the early 2000s!
-
@dhromed said:
Does the second paragraph on that page not help?@flabdablet said:
Net Usage Item
I don't understand what this does or how it makes FFX more pleasant.
-
@dhromed said:
These are closely linked facts. Safari on OSX is usable. Safari on Windows — which I've never tried — has a reputation of not being usable. OTOH, I've also never tried IE on OSX so it's not like I'm going out of my way to see idiot levels of pain.Cool, but
A) Safari is a laughably unusable browser
B) I'm on Windows
-
@PJH said:
Does the second paragraph on that page not help?
Drat, that's the one paragraph I skimmed over.
-
@dhromed said:
I tried for a while and there's nothing quite as annoying as the dialog for every page.
So I said fuck it, accept all cookies.
You could set up a cookie whitelist. That's the more reasonable way, but I don't know if there are any Firefox extensions that make this practical.
-
@scudsucker said:
I use Safari... Because no-one sane uses Safari
Sometimes these things write themselves. Othertimes you have have to quote them and chop out a block of text in the middle with a "..."
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@scudsucker said:
I use Safari... Because no-one sane uses Safari
Sometimes these things ... quote ... a block of text ...
Yeah.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@_leonardo_ said:
Not as if there's no choice either.
How hard did you look?@eViLegion said:
TRWTF is that the diff/merge tool didn't just take care of it properly.
Bingo. We should be able to see the lines side-by-side with the quotes and spaces as the only moving parts.
This is a high bar for a diff tool, I've never met one that meets it, but I'm a dreamer.
-
@dhromed said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@scudsucker said:
I use Safari... Because no-one sane uses Safari
Sometimes these things ... quote ... a block of text ...
Y...h.
You're not making and sense!
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@dhromed said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@scudsucker said:
I use Safari... Because no-one sane uses Safari
Sometimes these things ... quote ... a block of text ...
Y...h.
oe o ai a ee!
TEH BRAINDAMAGE?
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Net Usage Item
I don't understand what this does or how it makes FFX more pleasant.
I live in Australia, where it is normal for ISPs to include a "data allowance" in an access plan; they track the total volume of data downloaded each month (or for some ISPs, total data transferred in both directions) and if you exceed your month's allowance they'll either charge you some ridiculous rate per gigabyte for "excess data usage" or cut your connection back to some miserable speed for the rest of the month.
Net Usage Item gives me a neat little meter in the Firefox add-ons bar, updated hourly by logging into my ISP's members' page and scraping the usage data from it, meaning that I never have to bother checking that by hand. Here's a representative screenshot, complete with tooltip:
-
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Did they really divide the remaining data and time to give you a rate? Because that's what most people do, right, just download at one constant stream while they are or are not using the computer. Also, what's up with that theme??...@flabdablet said:
Net Usage Item
I don't understand what this does or how it makes FFX more pleasant.
I live in Australia, where it is normal for ISPs to include a "data allowance" in an access plan; they track the total volume of data downloaded each month (or for some ISPs, total data transferred in both directions) and if you exceed your month's allowance they'll either charge you some ridiculous rate per gigabyte for "excess data usage" or cut your connection back to some miserable speed for the rest of the month.
Net Usage Item gives me a neat little meter in the Firefox add-ons bar, updated hourly by logging into my ISP's members' page and scraping the usage data from it, meaning that I never have to bother checking that by hand. Here's a representative screenshot, complete with tooltip:
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
NoSquint,
Firefox out of the box kind of already does this adequately, but NoSquint is more advanced, obviously. Maybe I'll check it out.
NoSquint is nice because (a) it comes with the default zoom for all sites set to 120%, which is kind to my bleary old eyes and very rarely breaks site layout (b) it's smart about remembering which zoom levels should apply to which sites, so the fact that YouTube is broken at anything but 100% doesn't affect anything else I use (c) it sticks zoom buttons on the toolbar and adds a zoom percentage control to the add-ons bar, which it displays by default (d) it's nicely integrated with the normal Ctrl+wheel zoom control and (d) it has per-site text and background color overrides that are much less fiddly to set up than a Stylish user style and often quite adequate. I like it.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@flabdablet said:
Did they really divide the remaining data and time to give you a rate? Because that's what most people do, right, just download at one constant stream while they are or are not using the computer. Also, what's up with that theme??...Net Usage Item gives me a neat little meter in the Firefox add-ons bar, updated hourly by logging into my ISP's members' page and scraping the usage data from it, meaning that I never have to bother checking that by hand. Here's a representative screenshot, complete with tooltip:
Yes, that rate calculation is happening inside the usage meter. It's actually quite handy to have it in both MB/day form for getting an idea of today's data budget and in kB/s form for working out how hard I need to throttle BitTorrent to stop the kids blowing it all before the end of the month.
About the theme: I presume you're talking about the title bar. That's just desktop icons and part of my wallpaper showing through.
-
@flabdablet said:
Looks like it expired. Using too much bandwidth?
-
@Sutherlands said:
Did they really divide the remaining data and time to give you a rate? Because that's what most people do, right, just download at one constant stream while they are or are not using the computer.
It's just occurred to me that you might perhaps have been asking about Australian ISP practice rather than about the usage meter. No, I don't get my monthly 200GB served to me at barely-more-than-dialup speed; the ADSL2+ connection I have here is pretty good at 20Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up. Three years ago it was still fairly common to find rate-limited ADSL connections on offer at lower prices but that's rare now; the most common arrangement is that all the plans serve data at the maximum rate the connection will support, with pricing based on monthly data volume. Competition in city areas is pretty intense - quite a few retailers are now offering maximum-rate ADSL with no data cap at reasonable prices but those of us stuck with the legacy monopoly wholesaler still get to pay legacy prices.
The government is currently spending billions on a National Broadband Network that will eventually provide most Australian homes with fibre. ISPs are already reselling access to that with various levels of monthly data volume and rate throttling. No idea if or when it will turn up in my tiny rural town. NBNco's site says we're in the pipeline but doesn't make clear whether what they plan to offer us is glorious fibre or shitty wireless or even shittier satellite.
-
@anonymous234 said:
@dhromed said:
I know I'm weird, but I think the "ask every time" option makes it fairly simple to build the white/black list on the fly – just click the "Use my choice for all cookies from this site" box.I tried for a while and there's nothing quite as annoying as the dialog for every page.
So I said fuck it, accept all cookies.
You could set up a cookie whitelist. That's the more reasonable way, but I don't know if there are any Firefox extensions that make this practical.
Yeah, it's annoying as !@^@#%@%* when sites try to set scores of cookies; the worst are sites that send you a cookie everytime you scroll the $^$@$ page. These guys get blacklisted instantly. Pages where the cookies serve some useful purpose for ME (I don't give a &%#% about being useful to the site owner; my computer stores my data, not his), like logging into a site I actually use, they get whitelisted, usually for the session only. If I'm just random surfing, they get blacklisted (unless it breaks the page).
What I really want is a way to automatically accept or reject cookies based on the cookie name. All cookies with names matching /__utm./ shall be rejected with extreme predjudice. I feel no obligation to help any site owner analyze his site traffic (there are tools for this that do not involve storing data on my computer, TYVM), and I am sure as hell not obligated to help Google analyze shit.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
What I really want
What I really want is you to not post a fourth reply whining about the same thing, and instead learn to Google for things like "Cookie Monster", and "Ghostery".
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@anonymous234 said:
@dhromed said:
I know I'm weird, but I think the "ask every time" option makes it fairly simple to build the white/black list on the fly – just click the "Use my choice for all cookies from this site" box.I tried for a while and there's nothing quite as annoying as the dialog for every page.
So I said fuck it, accept all cookies.
You could set up a cookie whitelist. That's the more reasonable way, but I don't know if there are any Firefox extensions that make this practical.
Yeah, it's annoying as !@^@#%@%* when sites try to set scores of cookies; the worst are sites that send you a cookie everytime you scroll the $^$@$ page. These guys get blacklisted instantly. Pages where the cookies serve some useful purpose for ME (I don't give a &%#% about being useful to the site owner; my computer stores my data, not his), like logging into a site I actually use, they get whitelisted, usually for the session only. If I'm just random surfing, they get blacklisted (unless it breaks the page).
What I really want is a way to automatically accept or reject cookies based on the cookie name. All cookies with names matching /__utm./ shall be rejected with extreme predjudice. I feel no obligation to help any site owner analyze his site traffic (there are tools for this that do not involve storing data on my computer, TYVM), and I am sure as hell not obligated to help Google analyze shit.
Just to recap:
- Disable your cookies
- Disable your cache (hey, that's MY hard drive your dumb website is on!)
- Uninstall your browsers (can never be too safe)
- Yank out your phone
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@HardwareGeek said:
So it's ok to post a third? Since I only posted two so far. Thanks.What I really want
What I really want is you to not post a fourth reply whining about the same thing, and instead learn to Google for things like "Cookie Monster", and "Ghostery".Thanks for the pointer to ghostery; I hadn't heard of it before. Though the description does not mention cookies, it looks very useful for the things it does describe. However, it is a bit disconcerting that the download for the IE version comes from cdn.betteradvertising.com, and their EULA basically gives them permission to do everything you're installing it to prevent others from doing. I'm not sure about the Firefox and Chrome versions, since they just install automatically, without displaying an EULA.
I had looked at cookie monster before. It does not appear to be significantly better than Firefox's built-in controls, although extending those capabilities to IE and Chrome would be an improvement.
@Ben L. said:
Just to recap:
Ben, I salute your astounding wit and intelligence... with one finger.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@Ben L. said:
Ben, I salute your astounding wit and intelligence... with one finger.
What if I told you that that was Scott Adams wit and intelligence?
-
@Ben L. said:
What if I told you that that was Scott Adams wit and intelligence?
Yes, the last of your bullet points was a link to Scott Adams's* wit. How original and creative of you to post that! The rest was your own, and I give it all the respect it deserves.*Yes, the possessive case should should be formed with 's even though it already ends in s, although there are specific exceptions (this isn't one of them) and not all authorities consider it mandatory. To ignore the possessive and leave off the apostrophe altogether is simply wrong.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
*Yes, the possessive case should should be formed with 's even though it already ends in s, although there are specific exceptions (this isn't one of them) and not all authorities consider it mandatory. To ignore the possessive and leave off the apostrophe altogether is simply wrong.
Observe:
What if I told you that that was Scott Adams wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was Stephen Colbert wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was Microsoft wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was you missing the entire point of my post?
-
@Ben L. said:
@HardwareGeek said:
*Yes, the possessive case should should be formed with 's even though it already ends in s, although there are specific exceptions (this isn't one of them) and not all authorities consider it mandatory. To ignore the possessive and leave off the apostrophe altogether is simply wrong.
Observe:
What if I told you that that was Scott Adams wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was Stephen Colbert wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was Microsoft wit and intelligence?
What if I told you that that was you missing the entire point of my post?What if I told you that today I made ribs on the bbq but at first I had the heat too high and the edges singed but then I got the heat under control and perfectly smoked them over several hours and finally served them with homemade sauce and a side of corn and zucchini plus strawberry shortcake for dessert?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
What if I told you that today I made ribs on the bbq but at first I had the heat too high and the edges singed but then I got the heat under control and perfectly smoked them over several hours and finally served them with homemade sauce and a side of corn and zucchini plus strawberry shortcake for dessert?
It's midnight, and now I'm hungry again. Thank you so much.
-
@Ben L. said:
What if I told you that that was Stephen Colbert wit and intelligence?
I would ask to what antecedant that "that" refers.@Ben L. said:
What if I told you that that was Microsoft wit and intelligence?
I wouldn't believe you.@Ben L. said:
What if I told you that that was you missing the entire point of my post?
Your post had a point?
-
@_leonardo_ said:
Thanks to Sutherlands for mentioning "Beyond Compare",
I have not looked for a better text comparison tool in a long time... this looks nice (even compares directories), however non-free.
Anyone have any FREE suggestions, before I shell out thirty bucks for Beyond Compare?
I know i'm a bit late with the reply on this, but... I've got a couple of suggestions
P4Merge is about the best "free" (as in beer) diff tool I've seen.
If, however you're willing to fork out the coin. Araxis Merge, despite seeming stupidly expensive is hands down the best diff tool I've ever used. It'll pay for itself in less than a month.
-
@flabdablet said:
so the fact that YouTube is broken at anything but 100%
That's weird. I run at 120% all the time and Youtube looks fine. Well, "fine", considering the quality of videos on there.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@flabdablet said:
so the fact that YouTube is broken at anything but 100%
That's weird. I run at 120% all the time and Youtube looks fine. Well, "fine", considering the quality of videos on there.Just checked it myself and it looks like they fixed it. For many months it was shoving part of the player off the left edge at anything over 100%.
-
@dkf said:
OTOH, I've also never tried IE on OSX so it's not like I'm going out of my way to see idiot levels of pain.
Back in the day when IE was still supported on OSX, it was considered one of the best available browsers on any platform - it didn't really share much with IE on Windows (other than the name).
-
@ender said:
Back in the day when IE was still supported on OSX, it was considered one of the best available browsers on any platform - it didn't really share much with IE on Windows (other than the name).
Yeah it was a completely different codebase-- the widgets were based off the Office '98 widgets for Mac, IIRC.
And since the only OTHER choice (before Safari) was Netscape 4, believe me, if you were a Mac user in that era, you used fucking IE.
-
@blakeyrat said:
And since the only OTHER choice (before Safari) was Netscape 4, believe me, if you were a Mac user in that era, you used fucking IE.
You knew people who were using the first few versions of OSX? IE was default up to 10.2, but dropped after that (and de-supported by MS too). OTOH, the first few versions of OSX came out really rapidly, in part because they were run concurrently with OS9 (which is what Apple's users were mostly using at that time because Adobe took ages to port Photoshop over) and that apparently didn't run IE.At that time I was stuck with a shitty IRIX workstation, which totally sucked except for the graphics hardware (streets ahead of everyone else's at the time, but now long since surpassed). I used Netscape on that system because it was better than the alternatives. (Someone was still keeping a build of NCSA Mosaic going for that thing at that time IIRC! Brrrr…)
-
Yeah, then the choice was IE5 in Classic mode, Netscape 4 in Classic mode, or Netscape 6. Uh... we kept using IE. :)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@_leonardo_ said:
I have not looked for a better text comparison tool in a long time... this looks nice (even compares directories), however non-free.
Anyone have any FREE suggestions, before I shell out thirty bucks for Beyond Compare?
Suggestion 1: Don't be a cheap-ass.
Suggestion 2: ExamDiff. It doesn't do directories as far as I am aware. EDIT: I also just noticed the feature page for it calls a contextual menu a "right button pop up". Jesus people.
Well, it had to happen...I am agreeing with Blakey.... I am consistently perplexed by why professionals (and even serious amateurs) seem to think that spending money on tools of the trade is wrong. Would you have your car worked on my a mechanic who only used 'free tools'?
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@blakeyrat said:
@_leonardo_ said:
I have not looked for a better text comparison tool in a long time... this looks nice (even compares directories), however non-free.
Anyone have any FREE suggestions, before I shell out thirty bucks for Beyond Compare?
Suggestion 1: Don't be a cheap-ass.
Suggestion 2: ExamDiff. It doesn't do directories as far as I am aware. EDIT: I also just noticed the feature page for it calls a contextual menu a "right button pop up". Jesus people.
Well, it had to happen...I am agreeing with Blakey.... I am consistently perplexed by why professionals (and even serious amateurs) seem to think that spending money on tools of the trade is wrong. Would you have your car worked on my a mechanic who only used 'free tools'?
No. But would there be a repair shop chain that offered any alternatives if that scenario were possible?
I figure there are two kinds of amateurs:
-The cheapskates.
-Those who want to try it out before buying or can't afford the prices before actually beginning manufacture. Shelling out 900USD+ on a piece of software before you know that you have a product coming out of it takes one serious amateur.
Maybe that's why Eagle is so popular; you can do anything on it as long as you don't sell anything. And to monetize on your project made with the Shareware version, the Lite license is only 70USD. I'm seriously considering buying the full version now though, even if the license is 700EUR+.
But US$30? Buy it, man. You'd shell that out for a videogame, woudn't you?
-
@OldCrow said:
But US$30? Buy it, man. You'd shell that out for a videogame, woudn't you?
I waited two years for Dishonored to go 66% off on steam, so, uh, iunno, maybe I am a cheapskate.
-
@OldCrow said:
There are also professionals in places where budgets are segregated in such a way that purchasing anything is a world of pain, and the fact that the cost is going to be more than saved in productivity gains cuts no ice: those gains will be seen in someone else's budget so there's very little interest in following them up. (“Someone's paying us to employ staff to do this, but they're not giving us capital budget so that would come out of our main pool. So we won't spend on that; the department head needs a new leather chair instead.”)I figure there are two kinds of amateurs:
-The cheapskates.
-Those who want to try it out before buying or can't afford the prices before actually beginning manufacture. Shelling out 900USD+ on a piece of software before you know that you have a product coming out of it takes one serious amateur.
Maybe that's why Eagle is so popular; you can do anything on it as long as you don't sell anything. And to monetize on your project made with the Shareware version, the Lite license is only 70USD. I'm seriously considering buying the full version now though, even if the license is 700EUR+.
Large organisation finance is often deeply WTFy, and tends to only get more so the more you look at it.
-
If your company is so WTF that you can't expense a $30 program once a month without headaches, you need to leave it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If your company is so WTF that you can't expense a $30 program once a month without headaches, you need to leave it.
THe UK tax system is notably over-regulated, such that the admin cost of expensing a paperclip is often way more than $30. Things needs to be bought out of the right pot, rather than out of expenses, because expenses are rigidly controlled due to past abuses.
The end result is that you can't just go and buy something out of petty cash or expense it, but have to go through the usual purchasing channels. Frequently those usual channels aren't very wells uited to buying small items, which is something of a WTF in itself - but understandable given that many UK offices are run by overseas companies who can see that putting a $30 purchase through the purchasing system is a daft thing to do, and don't have a UK-specific different system to allow it.
And yes, clearly that's a brake on productivity.
-
So you have a shitty country. We already knew that. That's why all the good people left in the 18th century. Ziing.
EDIT: wait, there's no such thing as a discretionary budget in the UK? I find that impossible to believe. I think your company is just run by nitwits. At my company, $30 doesn't even hit the purchasing system, the cut-off is like $80.
-
@blakeyrat said:
So you have a shitty country. We already knew that. That's why all the good people left in the 18th century. Ziing.
It did occur to me that if you'd substituted the word 'country' for 'company' above, I might well have agreed. That said, your history is weak. There was, obviously, no emigration from Britain to the 'USA' prior to 1783, and although following the War of Secession the traitors claimed adherence to a rebel government - in which folly they persist to this day - they remained, and their ancestors remain, nothing more than scofflaws on British soil. There was next to no immigration to the rebelling colony for another 70-odd years from any country.
The only significant wave of emigration from Britain to the Americas was prior to the establishment of the British colonies there, which really means the only actual emigrants prior to about 1850 were the religious fanatics and terrorists who were kicked out following the English Civil War.
@blakeyrat said:EDIT: wait, there's no such thing as a discretionary budget in the UK? I find that impossible to believe. I think your company is just run by nitwits. At my company, $30 doesn't even hit the purchasing system, the cut-off is like $80.
Not my company. Generally it's from other, non-UK based companies. US-based ones in particular. 'Why should we have a different system to what works fine for us in the US?' they ask idiotically.
