Mozilla continues their march toward complete stupidity



  • Some of the improvements in the newly released Firefox 23:

    "Enable Javascript" checkbox removed from the Options menu.  If you want to disable Javascript you have to dig through <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font> and find the setting there.  As an extra added bonus, when you install FF23 it ignores your current Javascript preference (i.e., maybe you have it turned off) and turns it on by default.

    Same thing for the "Load Images Automatically" checkbox in the Options menu.  Gone and only accessible in <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  And reset to default (i.e., On).

    "Always Show Tab Bar" checkbox removed from Options menu, reset to default, AND, completely removed from <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  Want that option? Find an extension that does it.  I don't particularly care about this feature since I never hide the tab bar, but I do enjoy reading the Bugzilla comments from the Mozilla developers, responding to complaints about this change, which pretty much amounts to a thinly veiled "Fuck You".

    Then there's a  new logo.  Yes that what Firefox really needs.  And it's awesome!!


    But wait, there's more.  A "Share" Button!  That's even more awesome that the new logo!



  • @El_Heffe said:

    I do enjoy reading the Bugzilla comments from the Mozilla developers, responding to complaints about this change, which pretty much amounts to a thinly veiled "Fuck You".
     

    It's cute that you think the developers read the bug reports. They programmed an autoresponder to take care of bug reports, and it's basically been running for over a decade.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @El_Heffe said:

    "Enable Javascript" checkbox removed from the Options menu.  If you want to disable Javascript you have to dig through <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font> and find the setting there.  As an extra added bonus, when you install FF23 it ignores your current Javascript preference (i.e., maybe you have it turned off) and turns it on by default.

    Same thing for the "Load Images Automatically" checkbox in the Options menu.  Gone and only accessible in <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  And reset to default (i.e., On).

    As a web developer, let me be the first to say: woohoo fewer uncommon configurations to support!



  • In their defense, Firefox for Android is a heck of a lot less shitty than it used to be just a few months ago. And now the pinch-zoom fluidity isn't a total embarrassment like it is in Chrome.

    Also, how many people actually browse with Javascript/images turned completely off anyway? If you want to block that stuff, you're probably using something a bit more sophisticated, like AdBlock, NoScript, etc. This just minimizes "some guy told me this setting would make the internet faster and now Facebook don't work Firefox sucks".



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    "Enable Javascript" checkbox removed from the Options menu.  If you want to disable Javascript you have to dig through <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font> and find the setting there.  As an extra added bonus, when you install FF23 it ignores your current Javascript preference (i.e., maybe you have it turned off) and turns it on by default.

    Same thing for the "Load Images Automatically" checkbox in the Options menu.  Gone and only accessible in <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  And reset to default (i.e., On).

    As a web developer, let me be the first to say: woohoo fewer uncommon configurations to support!

    As a user, let me be the first to say:  Fuck you.  Stop messing with things.

     



  • @db2 said:

    Also, how many people actually browse with Javascript/images turned completely off anyway? If you want to block that stuff, you're probably using something a bit more sophisticated, like AdBlock, NoScript, etc.
    Which is fine for the ultra-paranoid who block everything.  But you shouldn't be worried about nutjobs like that, or the large percentage of the population who never mess with that setting because they don't know/don't care what it does.  Once in a while you may want to disable Javascript and now it's just been made more difficult, for no good reason. @db2 said:
    This just minimizes "some guy told me this setting would make the internet faster and now Facebook don't work Firefox sucks".
    Don't make stupid people my problem.



  • When I saw that graphic detailing all of the changes to their logo, I had to ask myself just how many meetings were held to decide on each of those changes.  And whether there was a project manager assigned to the new logo project.  And what levels of buy-in were required as action items from the various stakeholders on a going forward basis.

    Then I slapped myself for thinking that last sentence and realized that it wasn't my problem, since I never had to attend any of them anyway.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @DCRoss said:

    When I saw that graphic detailing all of the changes to their logo, I had to ask myself just how many meetings were held to decide on each of those changes.  And whether there was a project manager assigned to the new logo project.  And what levels of buy-in were required as action items from the various stakeholders on a going forward basis.

    Then I slapped myself for thinking that last sentence and realized that it wasn't my problem, since I never had to attend any of them anyway.

     

    So, at my last job, the bigwigs excitedly called an all-hands meeting to unveil the new company logo. One of the three partners who owned the company was a designer, full of pride, and after months he was ready to show it to us all. We all stood, slack jawed and speechless as he unveiled... A black line, a vertical stripe really, that with a bit of paint-like irregularity that faded to white at the bottom, and a small square above it to form an "I" (initial of the company).

    No one was bold enough to say it to their collective face, but at the bar after-hours we all had a good laugh about the "skid mark."

    Edit: Apparently they didn't even bother with the dot. It's just a fucking stripe. They're still using [anon].

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Don't make stupid people my problem.

    Stupid people have no difficulty becoming your problem without my (or Mozilla's) help.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    So, at my last job, the bigwigs excitedly called an all-hands meeting to unveil the new company logo. One of the three partners who owned the company was a designer, full of pride, and after months he was ready to show it to us all. We all stood, slack jawed and speechless as he unveiled... A black line, a vertical stripe really, that with a bit of paint-like irregularity that faded to white at the bottom, and a small square above it to form an "I" (initial of the company).

    No one was bold enough to say it to their collective face, but at the bar after-hours we all had a good laugh about the "skid mark."

    Edit: Apparently they didn't even bother with the dot. It's just a fucking stripe. They're still using [anon].

    Companies get really weird about logos.  The company I work for has several pages of "standards" regarding the company logo, for everything from business cards to letterheads, to signs on buildings. A few years ago they unveiled their "big change" in the company logo.  Previously it was the company name in blue on a white background surround by a blue line forming a square around the name.  They decided that blue was too common and being used by too many other companies, so they changed the blue to black.

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Apparently they didn't even bother with the dot. It's just a fucking stripe. They're still using [anon]
     I especially like how the favicon version looks like a piece of paper going through a shredder. [anon] Or maybe it's a toilet brush.

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Man, I hosted it separately so they wouldn't catch wind of me badmouthing them. Could we not name names?


    Maybe a mod could change it to Initech?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Edit: Apparently they didn't even bother with the dot. It's just a fucking stripe. They're still using [anon].
     

    Tried to follow the link, but instead of logo, got weird looking rendering glitch. Fix, please?

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Companies get really weird about logos.  The company I work for has several pages of "standards" regarding the company logo, for everything from business cards to letterheads, to signs on buildings. A few years ago they unveiled their "big change" in the company logo.  Previously it was the company name in blue on a white background surround by a blue line forming a square around the name.  They decided that blue was too common and being used by too many other companies, so they changed the blue to black.
    You should hear the discussions about logo use at Mensa.  They have all sorts of restrictions about how it can be placed in relation to other graphical things, how the colors can be rendered (you apparently aren't allowed to have a metallic logo), and what kinds of things it can be used on.

    A recent discussion was on whether a member could get it as a tattoo.  The answer, apparently, is yes...if you can somehow ensure that you'll never get wrinkles, body hair, scars or skin irregularities that will alter its appearance.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Some of the improvements in the newly released Firefox 23:

    "Enable Javascript" checkbox removed from the Options menu.  If you want to disable Javascript you have to dig through <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font> and find the setting there.  As an extra added bonus, when you install FF23 it ignores your current Javascript preference (i.e., maybe you have it turned off) and turns it on by default.

    Not a complete WTF.  There's something called NoScript, which I thought everyone somewhat technical installed along with Firefox.  That does a decent job of turning off Javascript.  The fact that it ignores your settings on upgrade is obviously extremely lazy development.

    @El_Heffe said:

    Same thing for the "Load Images Automatically" checkbox in the Options menu.  Gone and only accessible in <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  And reset to default (i.e., On).

    I'm ok with this (except for the resetting of the default which is
    again, extremely lazy).  How many people want to turn off the
    auto-loading of images?  We don't use 56k modems anymore.  Even my
    grandma that lives in the middle of nowhere has a decent WISP.  If you
    want to not auto-load images you can configure Adblock to do it. 

    @El_Heffe said:

      "Always Show Tab Bar" checkbox removed from Options menu, reset to default, AND, completely removed from <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  Want that option? Find an extension that does it.

    This smells a lot like the start of Gnome 3 and some of the design decisions they've made since then.  They start to define a "base" package that's pretty spartan and then expect someone else to come up with the extensions that make the software useable.  Is "Always Show Tab Bar" a critial feature?  No.  But it's been there for awhile and you can't just take it away without giving the user some sort of notice.  Mark it as deprecated somewhere that a user could see it, give them some lead time, and FOR YAHWEH'S SAKE create an unofficial extension that'll put back the behavior.

    But all in all, yes.  Agreed.  I prefer Chrome, which I use at work, but there simply aren't enough good extensions that I think I need in Chrome to use it at home.



  • Amazingly enough there are technical people who don't want to spend their time bitching about how sites break without JavaScript and just like the web to work. Strange concept, I know.



  • @stinerman said:

    How many people want to turn off the
    auto-loading of images?
     

    The answer is manyfold:

    1) Who gives a fuck? It's an option that's there. Someone is using it, and you'll piss those people off. The more you piss off, the smaller your usebase becomes. Death of a thousand feature cuts. 

    2)  Whoever is using it fucking set it that way. If you insist on removing the UI, don't FUCKING CHANGE THE VALUE!  Ever.  If you can't figure out how to check the current value and maintain/copy it to the new about:config entry, then you are a worthless incompetent developer and should never be allowed near code or oxygen again (except as an accelerate)

    3) If you even start to say "use an extension" I will fucking murder your father so hard his sperm for 30 years ago will die!  Install an extension, it's so easy-- except I have to do it on every goddamn fucking computer I own or use-- work, home-- wife's computer(s), parents computers, inlaws computers.  Here's the process. Try to do something. Remember Mozilla are colonlickers and the function isn't there. Google to find the extension. End up on wrong page because Mozilla's extension site isn't SEO friendly enough to be the top hit. Go back, click on second link. Install the extension. Restart FF.  Try to remember ever minor tweak to make to the extension's default configuration.  Then worry every time FF upgrades the extension will break.

    Fuck you fuck you fuck you. Install an extension is a great idea for EXTENDING the functionality of the browser. It's a shitstain solution for making the fucking this work like it was supposed to, like it used to until it was intentionally crippled. 

    Simple rule of thumb: if you're putting any effort at all into REDUCING the amount of features your browser has, you have instantly failed!  Jesus Christ in a 69 with all 70 virgins, I wouldn't even advocate that Microsoft remove ActiveX!!!



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Man, I hosted it separately so they wouldn't catch wind of me badmouthing them. Could we not name names?


    Maybe a mod could change it to Initech?

    It's Initech's logo and [anon] exists. You're boned.

    Maybe they'll take it easy on you because you've done them the favour of pointing out that when they notice blue is too common they should take the brown option off the table.

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @El_Heffe said:


    "Always Show Tab Bar" checkbox removed from Options menu, reset to default, AND, completely removed from <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  Want that option? Find an extension that does it.  I don't particularly care about this feature since I never hide the tab bar, but I do enjoy reading the Bugzilla comments from the Mozilla developers, responding to complaints about this change, which pretty much amounts to a thinly veiled "Fuck You".

    This is especially funny in light of this. For those of you who don't know, JWZ was one of the major Netscape/Mozilla developers.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @joe.edwards said:

    @DCRoss said:

    When I saw that graphic detailing all of the changes to their logo, I had to ask myself just how many meetings were held to decide on each of those changes.  And whether there was a project manager assigned to the new logo project.  And what levels of buy-in were required as action items from the various stakeholders on a going forward basis.

    Then I slapped myself for thinking that last sentence and realized that it wasn't my problem, since I never had to attend any of them anyway.

     

    So, at my last job, the bigwigs excitedly called an all-hands meeting to unveil the new company logo. One of the three partners who owned the company was a designer, full of pride, and after months he was ready to show it to us all. We all stood, slack jawed and speechless as he unveiled... A black line, a vertical stripe really, that with a bit of paint-like irregularity that faded to white at the bottom, and a small square above it to form an "I" (initial of the company).

    No one was bold enough to say it to their collective face, but at the bar after-hours we all had a good laugh about the "skid mark."

    Edit: Apparently they didn't even bother with the dot. It's just a fucking stripe. They're still using [anon].

    Anyone remember the Brown Ring of Quality? For those too young to remember, this is mocking the Lucent (pre Alcatel buyout) logo, which pretty much looked like a coffee cup stain, except it was red.

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @stinerman said:
    How many people want to turn off the
    auto-loading of images?
     

    The answer is manyfold:

    1) Who gives a fuck? It's an option that's there. Someone is using it, and you'll piss those people off. The more you piss off, the smaller your usebase becomes. Death of a thousand feature cuts. 

    2)  Whoever is using it fucking set it that way. If you insist on removing the UI, don't FUCKING CHANGE THE VALUE!  Ever.  If you can't figure out how to check the current value and maintain/copy it to the new about:config entry, then you are a worthless incompetent developer and should never be allowed near code or oxygen again (except as an accelerate)

    3) If you even start to say "use an extension" I will fucking murder your father so hard his sperm for 30 years ago will die!  Install an extension, it's so easy-- except I have to do it on every goddamn fucking computer I own or use-- work, home-- wife's computer(s), parents computers, inlaws computers.  Then worry every time FF upgrades the extension will break.

    Fuck you fuck you fuck you. Install an extension is a great idea for EXTENDING the functionality of the browser. It's a shitstain solution for making the fucking this work like it was supposed to, like it used to until it was intentionally crippled. 

    Simple rule of thumb: if you're putting any effort at all into REDUCING the amount of features your browser has, you have instantly failed!

    God Bless You.  This should be tattooed onto the forehead of every programmer who touches the source code of any browser.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @flabdablet said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    Man, I hosted it separately so they wouldn't catch wind of me badmouthing them. Could we not name names?


    Maybe a mod could change it to Initech?

    It's Initech's logo and [anon] exists. You're boned.

    Maybe they'll take it easy on you because you've done them the favour of pointing out that when they notice blue is too common they should take the brown option off the table.

    I don't really care if people identify them. I care that they're going to read this thread now, and I'm not exactly incognito with my username. They definitely watch both Google for their own name and their referer[sic] logs.
    I don't work for them any more but I still mingle in the same circles and meet up for lunch every other month. It's a network and I just poisoned one really good reference/connection.

    So yeah, dick move linking this thread to their homepage.

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • @El_Heffe said:

    God Bless You.  This should be tattooed onto the forehead of every programmer who touches the source code of any browser.

    That would be incredibly useless, as none of them would be able to see it...

    It's a network and I just poisoned one really good reference/connection.

    Well, I understand you wanting to keep a good reference, but I think it's a pretty sad reference if the fact that you dislike their logo is going to matter more than the fact that you worked without issue there. I mean... It DOES look slightly ambiguous. Anyone whom cannot see that... Meh.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    Man, I hosted it separately so they wouldn't catch wind of me badmouthing them. Could we not name names?


    Maybe a mod could change it to Initech?

    It's Initech's logo and [anon] exists. You're boned.

    Yeah, that's the problem with Google Image Search. Just hosting a picture somewhere else doesn't protect you anymore. @joe.edwards said:
    I don't work for them any more but I still mingle in the same circles and meet up for lunch every other month. It's a network and I just poisoned one really good reference/connection.
    Maybe not.  Surely the people you hang out with know  that its a really horrible logo (even if they don't admit it publicly).

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh



  • People here are dicks. Barfoo is definitely a dick. Any moderator who hasn't yet anonymized Barfoo's post is a dick.

    I mean, I'm a dick. But I'd never do what Barfoo did. I have standards. Dick standards.

    Don't be a dick people.



  • @db2 said:

    In their defense, Firefox for Android is a heck of a lot less shitty than it used to be just a few months ago.
    Oh yeah? Except for it hiding the address bar and the tab bar every time you start scrolling on the page, even on a tablet where there is plenty of screen estate to keep them around and still be able to read the page content comfortably. The Firefox devs are so locked up inside their own heads that they seem unable to comprehent that some people might want for example to keep the list of tabs open so they can switch between pages quickly, like when comparing different sources on the same topic.

    But no, now you have to open it again every time, even if you just accidentally scroll the page by a single pixel (which, admit it, is pretty easy to do on a touch-operated device), using an extra swipe gesture that on top of it, at least for me, seems to work only about every other time, so I often have to do it twice or even more.

    That pissed me off so much that, after using Firefox on my tablet for a long time, I finally gave up, uninstalled it and got Chrome instead. I mean, they don't even offer a configuration setting allowing me to choose which behavior I prefer?! How full of delusion must they be that they seem to believe they know what's good for me than I do myself? Someone should give them a good kicking in the nuts to get them back down on planet Earth with the rest of us.

    Fk you, fking arrogant Firef**k developers.



  • @stinerman said:

    How many people want to turn off the
    auto-loading of images?  We don't use 56k modems anymore.
    Mainly, I'd imagine, those on limited data plans who don't want to download every image imaginable and use up their quota in 7 days. I suppose the blind might also turn it off, though it probably matters less to them.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Install an extension, it's so easy-- except I have to do it on every goddamn fucking computer I own or use-- work, home-- wife's computer(s), parents computers, inlaws computers. 



    they still haven't figured out how to sync the user preferences across computers?

    chrome does it nicely (although some extensions are not synced)




  • @joe.edwards said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @joe.edwards said:
    Man, I hosted it separately so they wouldn't catch wind of me badmouthing them. Could we not name names?


    Maybe a mod could change it to Initech?

    It's Initech's logo and [anon] exists. You're boned.

    Maybe they'll take it easy on you because you've done them the favour of pointing out that when they notice blue is too common they should take the brown option off the table.

    I don't really care if people identify them. I care that they're going to read this thread now, and I'm not exactly incognito with my username. They definitely watch both Google for their own name and their referer[sic] logs.
    I don't work for them any more but I still mingle in the same circles and meet up for lunch every other month. It's a network and I just poisoned one really good reference/connection.

    So yeah, dick move linking this thread to their homepage.

     

     

    Edit
    Anonymized  - dh

    Good grief, I completely missed the logo and link; which I guess is a good thing.

    But now my curiosity is piqued — forbidden fruit and all that — and I'd really like to take a look at the logo. Could anyone possibly PM it to me? Thanks.



  •  @El_Heffe said:

    "Always Show Tab Bar" checkbox removed from Options menu, reset to default, AND, completely removed from <font face="courier new,courier">about:config</font>.  Want that option? Find an extension that does it.  I don't particularly care about this feature since I never hide the tab bar, but I do enjoy reading the Bugzilla comments from the Mozilla developers, responding to complaints about this change, which pretty much amounts to a thinly veiled "Fuck You".

    Wait, do you mean that the tab bar always hides, or that it always shows? Because when the option first appeared, it defaulted on "off" (always hide).

    If they did reset that to "always hide" with impossibility of changing that, there'll be blood.



  • @Medinoc said:

    If they did reset that to "always hide" with impossibility of changing that, there'll be blood.
     

    There's the orange FFX Button, so it's hard to imagine a tab bar that is off.

    Unless you're one of those weenies that has the traditional menu turned on.



  • @Nelle said:

    they still haven't figured out how to sync the user preferences across computers?
    Yes, they have (well it's certainly there in FF25; I'm fairly certain it's present in 23.) It's a checkbox in Sync preferences, along with addons, bookmarks, passwords, history and tabs. This does, of course, presume the user has set up Sync on Firefox... (It works fine for me across 3 computers with 2 different OSs.)



  • @Zecc said:

    Could anyone possibly
    PM it to me? Thanks.
    Thank you, random forum-dweller.

    Good grief, the text on the homepage is making my eyes hurt.



  • I believe this stuff are good ideas. I mean, no JavaScript is kind of dumb this days, but hey, if you know what is JS and want to disable it, getting a plugin for this isn't that hard. The same for every other feature. I prefer my browser to be as light and fast as possible. This features you mentioned are not commonly used by non-technical users, so why maintain them and introduce code complexity when the same thing can be accomplished by a plugin.

    Also, I prefer that Mozilla would focus its development efforts on other stuff, like the JavaScript engine, WebGL support, and not in maintaining never to be used features.



  • @PJH said:

    Mainly, I'd imagine, those on limited data plans who don't want to download every image imaginable and use up their quota in 7 days.
     

    The smaller limited dataplan available around here has 256MB. That's a fucking lot of images, we are not at the 90's anymore.




  • @DCRoss said:

    And what levels of buy-in were required as action items from the various stakeholders on a going forward basis.
     

    It's Mozilla we are talking about. There is obviously no buy-in required for their decisions.

    Anyway, I like how the logo is gaining white hair.



  • @Mcoder said:

    @PJH said:

    Mainly, I'd imagine, those on limited data plans who don't want to download every image imaginable and use up their quota in 7 days.
     

    The smaller limited dataplan available around here has 256MB. That's a fucking lot of images,

    It really isn't. Not when you include things like animated/flash adverts, forum avatars, web beacons etc.



  •  This very page, for the record, weighs in at 930KB.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @stinerman said:
    How many people want to turn off the
    auto-loading of images
    an option?
     

    The answer is manyfold:

    1) Who gives a fuck? It's an option that's there. Someone is using it, and you'll piss those people off. The more you piss off, the smaller your userbase becomes. Death of a thousand feature cuts. 

    2)  Whoever is using it fucking set it that way. If you insist on removing the UI, don't FUCKING CHANGE THE VALUE!  Ever.  If you can't figure out how to check the current value and maintain/copy it to the new about:config entry version, then you are a worthless incompetent developer and should never be allowed near code or oxygen again (except as an accelerant)

    3) If you even start to say "use an extension" I will fucking murder your father so hard his sperm for 30 years ago will die!  Install an extension, it's so easy-- except I have to do it on every goddamn fucking computer I own or use-- work, home-- wife's computer(s), parents computers, inlaws computers.  Then worry every time FF the app upgrades the extension will break.

    Fuck you fuck you fuck you. Install an extension is a great idea for EXTENDING the functionality of the browser application. It's a shitstain solution for making the fucking this work like it was supposed to, like it used to until it was intentionally crippled. 

    Simple rule of thumb: if you're putting any effort at all into REDUCING the amount of features your browser application has, you have instantly failed!

    God Bless You.  This should be tattooed onto the forehead of every programmer who touches the source code of any browser.

     

    FTFY

    I don't care what your app is - if you've exposed an option, someone somewhere has used it, and you had better not take it away without a damn good reason. If you don't want it in the average user's face, you can put in an Advanced tab in your Options dialog/page/whatever, or put it in an Advanced dialog somewhere, or whatever, but don't take it away, and don't require an arcane or difficult procedure to change it.



  • @dhromed said:

     This very page, for the record, weighs in at 930KB.

    200KB of which is the image. (That link puts the page at 832K.)


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @joe.edwards said:

    Anonymized  - dh

    Thank you, dh.



  • @PJH said:

    @stinerman said:
    We don't use 56k modems anymore.
    Mainly, I'd imagine, those on limited data plans

    So the initial premise was wrong.



  • @PJH said:

    @dhromed said:

     This very page, for the record, weighs in at 930KB.

    200KB of which is the image. (That link puts the page at 832K.)
     

    True! And this  forum is a little excessive, given the tags.

    How much data could be saved by using slimmed-down js/css/html, compared to absent images, do you think? I heard facebook is a big offender of shoveling large mountains of code to your browser.

     



  • @Nelle said:

    they still haven't figured out how to sync the user preferences across computers?
     

    I'm sure there's some feature to do that, but you missed my point. While I have multiple computers, I also use multiple computers from multiple people. If my wife hands me her laptop and says "My status bar vanished", I can't sync my profile to hers. If she then hands me her work laptop, I can't even sync her home profile to her school one.  I'm not going to cross-sync my mother's laptop with my father's desktop. And so forth.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I'm not going to cross-sync my mother's laptop with my father's desktop. And so forth.

    I cross-synced your mother's laptop with my desktop, ifyouknowwhatImean?


    (Edit:....something else about a dongle... mumble mumble...)



  • @dhromed said:

    How much data could be saved by using slimmed-down js/css/html, compared to absent images, do you think?
     

    It can be better, but it's orders of magnitude here. All the data savings you'll realize from slimming down the code will be annihilated by a single stray advert/uncompressed image.

    Given the convoluted shit going on on Facebook, I have no idea how to properly size things up. It LOOKS like in js alone, the page is ~500kb.  Avatar images seem to be nicely thumbnailed, and I'm assuming most posted images are aggressively compressed and cached.  Looks like thumbnails are ~12kb, and full sized shared images are ~35k.  These are just one data points, and of course there are multiple images on a page. And that's Facebook, which is a whole other fishbarrel of monkeys than your average page.



  • @eViLegion said:

    I cross-synced your mother's laptop with my desktop, ifyouknowwhatImean?


    (Edit:....something else about a dongle... mumble mumble...)
     

    Yeah, well, I'm on your family data plan!



  • @Aeolun said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    God Bless You.  This should be tattooed onto the forehead of every programmer who touches the source code of any browser.

    That would be incredibly useless, as none of them would be able to see it...

    That's easy, tattoo it backwards so they can read it in a mirror.

    I'm more concerned that it will have to be in about 5-point text to fit it all in. (Bald programmers will have an advantage here.) Can tattoo-ers do 5-point text? Do we need to breed programmers with bigger foreheads?

     



  • @D-Coder said:

    Do we need to breed programmers with bigger foreheads?

    No, we need dual-head programmers, so you can tattoo it onto their secondary forehead for ease of reference, while they continue to work on their primary.



  • @eViLegion said:

    @D-Coder said:
    Do we need to breed programmers with bigger foreheads?

    No, we need dual-head programmers, so you can tattoo it onto their secondary forehead for ease of reference, while they continue to work on their primary.

    Thank you for my Chuckle Of The Day!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.