Firefox, amirite guys
-
@fire2k said:
(like let's a connection no keeping up with 1080p)
The parse tree my brain built trying to work out what was going on here briefly looked like this:
(I was going to use an actual weird-looking tree but this picture is funnier.)
-
@joe.edwards said:
@OldCrow said:
Depends on how you calculate userbases. I think with the recent changes in Ubuntu and Firefox, Debian might be gaining. I switched over from Ubuntu, for example; got frustrated with Unity.
Can't you just install gnome-desktop on Ubuntu? I don't get when people bitch about something that can be changed so easily.Putting Gnome on Ubuntu is currently harder than putting KDE on windows(7 or earlier, that is, 8 is a whole new beast)
-
@OldCrow said:
@fire2k said:
Because that worked soo well for Debian. They suceeded in getting the Firefox-license less restrictive and achieved all of their goals. What's that you say? All they suceeded in was wasting a lot of manpower in backporting software towards a shrinking userbase? Huh.
Forking isn't a mechanism for correcting project courses, since the thing you are forking about has to significant enough to build a userbase on. See Oracle being huge dicks about MySQL and OpenOffice. The mechanism for correcting project courses is complaining a lot until stupid social media hypes and reddit annoy the shit out the sponsoring/project team, so that they either change things or ragequit.
Depends on how you calculate userbases. I think with the recent changes in Ubuntu and Firefox, Debian might be gaining. I switched over from Ubuntu, for example; got frustrated with Unity.
Yes, the userbase overlap between people that want no new features, no external firmwares/drivers, ideological superiority and stability is probably huge with the people that have been running Ubuntu. And yes, there is a stable Ubuntu - I just don't see why anybody would want the worst of both worlds.
@OldCrow said:
In cases where a group inside the developer base gets the power to commit stupidity on the project and uses this power to do just that, forking is a viable option. See for example ffmpeg/avconv.
Yeah, thanks for providing another example of my point." Forking isn't a mechanism for correcting project courses, since the thing you are forking about has to be significant enough to build a userbase on". It was with ffmpeg, MySQL, OpenOffice. It wasn't and is never going to be with Iceweasel, Waterfox and so on. Most sucessful forks are forks by divided teams, about team directions, corporate culture etc. The problem Firefox has is an abusive relationship with their user-base, their own self esteem and the smartphone market.
-
@FrostCat said:
@fire2k said:
(like let's a connection no keeping up with 1080p)
The parse tree my brain built trying to work out what was going on here briefly looked like this:
(I was going to use an actual weird-looking tree but this picture is funnier.)
"like let's say, a connection not keeping up with 1080p" is obviously what I meant. Also that picture is probably how the SAX-implementation in Java works.
-
@fire2k said:
@GNU Pepper said:
@flaneurb said:
In Firefox 23, if I had the Flash Player set to "Ask to Activate" on the plug-in page, I could open several YouTube pages as separate tabs and play the videos one by one.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people being inconvenienced after building esoteric edge-case workflows on top of fringe bits and pieces of unrelated behaviour. There isn't a software company in business that has enough spare hours in the day to give a shit about this strange habit of opening lots of YouTube tabs simultaneously and jury-rigging the plugin system to control the playback of those tabs.
Yes, because there are no valid reasons (like let's a connection no keeping up with 1080p) where you want to selectively preload videos. And to anyone advocating YouTube-Extensions: There are other video sites in existence.
I know you've been doing this to preload videos. Obviously you wouldn't just have been pressing buttons with no particular goal in mind. What I'm suggesting is that somebody such as yourself with a non-zero amount of insight into the way software is designed, built and maintained shouldn't have expected to be able to rely on Firefox's plugin security system as a video playback control mechanism forever. You certainly shouldn't be publicly haranguing Mozilla over it as if it's fair to expect the Firefox team to support every single ass-backwards CD-tray-as-drinks-holder use case that everybody has ever absent-mindedly devised.
-
@GNU Pepper said:
I know you've been doing this to preload videos. Obviously you wouldn't just have been pressing buttons with no particular goal in mind. What I'm suggesting is that somebody such as yourself with a non-zero amount of insight into the way software is designed, built and maintained shouldn't have expected to be able to rely on Firefox's plugin security system as a video playback control mechanism forever. You certainly shouldn't be publicly haranguing Mozilla over it as if it's fair to expect the Firefox team to support every single ass-backwards CD-tray-as-drinks-holder use case that everybody has ever absent-mindedly devised.
Now you seem to make a lot of claims, but it's all just thinly veiled insults. There is no reasoning. You say "your behaviour is broken", but you don't say why my behaviour is wrong. You say I have no idea how software is designed, but you don't say what you base that on.
It's almost as if you only come here to randomly shout buzzwords at people based on one stereotype you want to brand (user to stupid to use this), an if it turned out that I was an experienced software designer you would just switch to a random set of different buzzword insults (like neckbeard, hipter and so on). Maybe it's from all the crack.
Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
-
@fire2k said:
hipter
Wot?
@fire2k said:Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.
-
@fire2k said:
There is no reasoning. You say "your behaviour is broken", but you don't say why my behaviour is wrong.
I thought I'd stated it quite plainly, but I'll lay it out on the table for you. If you want to control the playback of YouTube videos, then you should use the video playback controls provided in YouTube's UI. Click to Play is not designed as a video playback control system and has never been marketed as one. Your behaviour depends on an unintended side-effect of Click to Play, and as such you have no reasonable expectation of support.
@fire2k said:
You say I have no idea how software is designed, but you don't say what you base that on.
Apologies, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. When I said "somebody such as yourself", I was appealing to you to draw on the knowledge which (I assume) you have of the software delivery process in order to see the other side of the coin. It was supposed to be the opposite of an accusation of ignorance.
-
@GNU Pepper said:
@fire2k said:
There is no reasoning. You say "your behaviour is broken", but you don't say why my behaviour is wrong.
I thought I'd stated it quite plainly, but I'll lay it out on the table for you. If you want to control the playback of YouTube videos, then you should use the video playback controls provided in YouTube's UI. Click to Play is not designed as a video playback control system and has never been marketed as one. Your behaviour depends on an unintended side-effect of Click to Play, and as such you have no reasonable expectation of support.
@fire2k said:
You say I have no idea how software is designed, but you don't say what you base that on.
Apologies, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. When I said "somebody such as yourself", I was appealing to you to draw on the knowledge which (I assume) you have of the software delivery process in order to see the other side of the coin. It was supposed to be the opposite of an accusation of ignorance.
The problem is with the general attribute of the software. Software has to be transparent and predictable. Having a tab open and then having to click to activate the plugin loaded within that site, which is clearly printed onto the plugin box, loading the plugin after clicking is predictable. The usability study showed that people, that want their grumpy cat now, are too stupid to read labels. But if you cater to the people that won't try to interface with your software you might as well give up. There is nothing you can do to make these people secure. Okay, I get that people want the preview picture flash shows. So why not just implement showing the preview image? Okay, People don't want to click to plugin on plugins that they always use - why not just give the options "Allow", "Always Allow", "Never Ask Again", like with passwords? Why not just activate the plugin in all tabs if "Always Allow" was pressed? Opening the plugin in all tabs isn't transparent. People I know often use 15-20 Tabs, sometimes from the same domain. Activating Java on of these tabs only to have it run all elements of this domain is just not predictable. And the security effect from only selectively loading plugin containers is also gone, because allow one plugin == allow all instances of this plugin. How does that make any sense to you?
Also I would really love to use the YouTube-Controls, if they weren't so f***in broken. Want to always load videos in HQ(1080p preferred) even though your connection will need preload time for that? Nope, you need a browser-extension. Want selective videos to stop buffering after a certain point (because you only want to watch the first 20 Minutes of Seinfeld or something)? Nope. Want to filter after specific lengths or view counts? Well, better learn our Post-commands. Whoops, we just linked your Google+ with your realname into youtube, you better like it. And don't get me started on flash. Flash is broken. Very Broken.
-
@PJH said:
@fire2k said:
Huh? I guess autoupdate isn't working either, at least for me, because I'm still on 22.Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@PJH said:
@fire2k said:
Huh? I guess autoupdate isn't working either, at least for me, because I'm still on 22.Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.I think they removed the ExaggeratedMozillaReleaseNumberJoke option in 21. You'll need to use an extension if you want to get the joke.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Actually, I'm surprised they haven't started incementing version numbers by 2 or 3 so that they can jump ahead of Chrome, which seems to be the only thing they care about.@PJH said:
@fire2k said:
Huh? I guess autoupdate isn't working either, at least for me, because I'm still on 22.Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.Filed under: Is Mozilla incrementing release numbers by 2 now?
-
@El_Heffe said:
Actually, I'm surprised they haven't started incementing version numbers by 2 or 3 so that they can jump ahead of Chrome, which seems to be the only thing they care about.
So you DID install the extension.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@PJH said:
@fire2k said:
Huh? I guess autoupdate isn't working either, at least for me, because I'm still on 22.Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.23.0.1 is currently stable, so yeah, your auto-update sucks. Something between 16-20 is used by the majority of stable backporting Linux industry. 24 is the Beta I am running in order not to start crying everytime a new update changes my configurations and behaviour (man, I wish they would stop re-enabling pdf.js all the time, it works for nearly nothing). Now I cry everytime a new Beta changes my config. 25 is the alpha, 26 would be the nightly.
-
@fire2k said:
Oh look! Sounds like Flash is going an exception. But not the way you want.TL;DR: Firefox used to have to option to make all the plugins only start once you explicitly clicked on them in a tab. Now the default behaviour is to suddenly allow the plugin to run in all tabs everywhere once you enable it once. Started a youtube-video? Start all the youtube-videos!
Now if NoScript didn't have the same stupid "let's reload all tabs" behavior...
Edit: ok, found "Automatically reload affected pages when permissions change" option. I expect it'll work.
-
@Zecc said:
Edit: ok, found "Automatically reload affected pages when permissions change" option. I expect it'll work.
It works as expected. The WTF is that it isn't disabled by default.
-
@El_Heffe said:
Chrome has big version numbers too? I haven't actually ever looked at the version number, so... 29? Really?@HardwareGeek said:
Actually, I'm surprised they haven't started incementing version numbers by 2 or 3 so that they can jump ahead of Chrome, which seems to be the only thing they care about.@PJH said:
@fire2k said:
Huh? I guess autoupdate isn't working either, at least for me, because I'm still on 22.Oh, and no spellcheck, because the firefox spellcheck is broken in 24.
Seems to have been fixed by 26.Filed under: Is Mozilla incrementing release numbers by 2 now?
-
@Eternal Density said:
Chrome has big version numbers too? I haven't actually ever looked at the version number, so... 29? Really?
No, not really.
-
@Zecc said:
@fire2k said:
Oh look! Sounds like Flash is going an exception. But not the way you want.TL;DR: Firefox used to have to option to make all the plugins only start once you explicitly clicked on them in a tab. Now the default behaviour is to suddenly allow the plugin to run in all tabs everywhere once you enable it once. Started a youtube-video? Start all the youtube-videos!
Now if NoScript didn't have the same stupid "let's reload all tabs" behavior...
Edit: ok, found "Automatically reload affected pages when permissions change" option. I expect it'll work.First of all - thank you firefox for breaking more things, being more inconsistent, and linking to that "study" once again. Anybody want to make it reddit-famous? Pretty please.
Second of all - click-to-play should not be limited to plugins. I know Mozilla, you have some kind of inherent problem with external systems (I am too tired to write a "hurt before" joke, where Adobe and Java are involved) and want them to die, but people will just move on. Instead of having flash play annoying bullshit all the time and track me, they will just figure out that canvas,webm and javascript work just as well. Youtube will autoplay all the tabs again, all while redesigning their user interfaces in the most confusing way possible to make it even more useless. Security holes in canvas will rape my browser again. Flash will make the first implementation of h265 that actually works, and firefox will look fucking stupid for trying to kill it off. Google will wait with webm/vp9 and will never ever enable it in youtube per default, because they occasionally are f-in scared of the things they could do, like make everyone on the web install proper codecs.
-
@fire2k said:
Filed under: let's make a new thread the next time they fuck up
If we start a new thread every time they fuck up this will become the I Hate Firefox Forum.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
No, not really.
30……but that's just provisional. I've only been awake a few hours and there's plenty of time for another update before lunch.
