Mozilla have lost their mind
-
@blakeyrat said:
"why do people think they need IE to update Windows?"
At one time, if you went to windowsupdate.com with any browser other than IE you got a message telling you it wouldn't work. I guess some people still haven't noticed that it's right there in the Start Menu.
-
@blakeyrat said:
IE8 puts all those measures in one of its tabs instead of displaying it directly on the page.
Course I know that. They all have that typical box showing offset-margin-padding-box values on a tab or somewhere, so it's not a revolutionary feature or anything. But it's also pretty shitty way of displaying that information.
Firebug is the only one that has a proper, readable overlay on the page itself, and I find that to be worth a lot more than looking at a bunch of numbers.
FB's debugger gave me shit probably because I wasn't used to using it. Setting breakpoints in Javascript code has so far never helped me get any real information about why my code is doing it wrong. For the time being, I'm going to assume it's my fault for being thick about how the thing works.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hey look, I just found out that Firefox 4 is going to pin itself to the Windows 7 taskbar if the user decides to set Firefox as their default browser. Of course, there's no API for this (imagine how easily abused it would be!), which means Firefox is resorting to undocumented hacks to do it.
I love the way he tries to justify this, which basically amounts to: BUT MICROSOFT DOES IT!!
\
@blakeyrat said:So... yeah. Mozilla is trying hard to become the RealNetworks of web browsers.
-
@ShatteredArm said:
@Spectre said:
Well, that's the bank's fault. If you're using HSTS, make sure that you're actually using a valid certificate! (And a bank requiring users to add an exception is TRWTF, anyway.)
Not necessarily. If you read my original post, the proxy at your WTF company might intercept all SSL traffic and open a new SSL connection between you and the proxy, meaning every single certificate is invalid, no matter what the website does. The HSTS might make sense for normal connections outside of companies vying for the Benito Mussolini Award for Corporate Authoritarianism.
Well, in such case you're really better off not performing your financial transactions at work.
-
and how many people who think calling other people names, childish moronic names, will slit their wrists because nobody freaked out over one group screwing up and they just pick up the pieces and start a new awesome iteration, just like last time.
neither FOSS nor proprietary are inherently advantageous, pick based on features, TCO and preference
/works for a HUGE "proprietary firm".
[edit]
oh.. how to pin to start menu and taskbar are covered on technet
http://blogs.technet.com/b/deploymentguys/archive/2009/04/08/pin-items-to-the-start-menu-or-windows-7-taskbar-via-script.aspx
http://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/ScriptCenter/b66434f1-4b3f-4a94-8dc3-e406eb30b750/
-
@Kazan said:
oh.. how to pin to start menu and taskbar are covered on technet
Disclaimer: The information on this site is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, confers no rights, and is not supported by the authors or Microsoft Corporation. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified in the Terms of Use.
Note also that it appears to require an English OS install, as they're actually looking for the text "Pin to Start Menu" in the list of verbs. The second example appears to be better-written, but still specifically disclaims that it's not supported by Microsoft at the bottom of the page.
Sadly, there's a lot of hacks on Technet. "Being posted on Technet" doesn't really pass my bar for "supported operation."
-
@blakeyrat said:
(Taken directly from my Windows Update control panel; this computer has never been to windowsupdate.com, except perhaps by accident.)
There's quite a lot of people with older computers (or some misguided notions) still using XP. Also, even in Vista and 7 you only get Windows updates by default - getting updates for other programs involves a one time side trip through IE.
-
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
(Taken directly from my Windows Update control panel; this computer has never been to windowsupdate.com, except perhaps by accident.)
There's quite a lot of people with older computers (or some misguided notions) still using XP.Yeah, but XP doesn't (and never did) require the use of windowsupdate.com. It's completely optional in XP.
@ender said:
Also, even in Vista and 7 you only get Windows updates by default - getting updates for other programs involves a one time side trip through IE.
Completely untrue. Look at the list of updates above-- notice the Office updates? That computer never visited windowsupdate.com. Ever.
-
blakey, it's cool that you can get updates for all the important software you use (I can too BTW), but you should actually considere installing them sometime. :p
-
@The_Assimilator said:
blakey, it's cool that you can get updates for all the important software you use (I can too BTW), but you should actually considere installing them sometime. :p
No! I want my OS to remain vintage. If you crease the spine it loses value!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Completely untrue. Look at the list of updates above-- notice the Office updates? That computer never visited windowsupdate.com. Ever.
Seeing that you have Office installed, maybe you let it switch you to Microsoft Update (it asks you on the first run - and fails miserably if you're in a domain where the updates are configured through Group Policy) - by default you only get updates for Windows.
-
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
Completely untrue. Look at the list of updates above-- notice the Office updates? That computer never visited windowsupdate.com. Ever.
Seeing that you have Office installed, maybe you let it switch you to Microsoft Update (it asks you on the first run - and fails miserably if you're in a domain where the updates are configured through Group Policy) - by default you only get updates for Windows.I don't think there is such a thing as a separate "Microsoft Update" anymore. I think Office just says, "yo, hey, OS dude... gimme my updates, bitch!" and the OS is like, "yes massa!" and does it.
Anyway, I can't speak with 100% confidence for XP (because it's been years since I've used it-- upgrade people!), but I do know that I didn't use the windowsupdate.com website for jack, and it pulled Office updates as well.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Always mystified by this one. Windows hasn't used IE for updates in over a decade. It was optional in Windows 2000... I never used IE to update my computer in Windows XP, and IE won't even let you in Vista or Windows 7. Shit, even Windows 98 would pull the critical updates with no involvement from IE. What decade are you living in?
We need some psychologist to do a study, "why do people think they need IE to update Windows?" I'd really love to see the results of that one.
That would be because if you use Iron browser (and I presume Chrome as well, probably all other browsers) and go to the Microsoft Update site, you get this text on an otherwise blank page:
"Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.
To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.
To upgrade to the latest version of the browser, go to the Internet Explorer Downloads website.
If you prefer to use a different web browser, you can obtain updates from the Microsoft Download Center or you can stay up to date with the latest critical and security updates by using Automatic Updates."I suppose if you only use Automatic Updates, it might not matter, but after so many times where MS force what I would deem as optional updates without the option (like newer versions of IE, forcing Automatic Updates, etc.), I prefer to run my updates manually.
Luckily, Iron/chrome has this handy Extension called IE Tab, which allow you to browse a site using the IE engine, but stil within an Iron tab, IYSWIM. So that's how I run my MS updates nowadays.
Oh, and for the record, I just clicked 'Microsoft Update' in my XP Start Menu, and yes it STILL opens IE at the MS Update site page, just like it always has; so I'd say that would make IE a requirement, at least for XP. And no, I don't plan to upgrade it any time soon, before you all berate me for that. Some of us are VERY POOR and couldn't afford the upgrade even if we wanted to (which I don't).
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ender said:
Not true, except for critical updates. Besides, some people still use XP at work because mommy the company won't buy them new toys until at least Service Pack 1 is out.@blakeyrat said:
(Taken directly from my Windows Update control panel; this computer has never been to windowsupdate.com, except perhaps by accident.)
There's quite a lot of people with older computers (or some misguided notions) still using XP.Yeah, but XP doesn't (and never did) require the use of windowsupdate.com. It's completely optional in XP.
@blakeyrat said:
@ender said:
So you have Vista or 7. Good for you, it's quite a nice feature, but Windows Update Control Panel wasn't available in XP. I just checked, there were 9 updates in the window launched by the small yellow shield icon and 14 at the site. Also, the shield updates are for the system only.Also, even in Vista and 7 you only get Windows updates by default - getting updates for other programs involves a one time side trip through IE.
Completely untrue. Look at the list of updates above-- notice the Office updates? That computer never visited windowsupdate.com. Ever.
So anyway, as I was saying, despite all those red flags concerning new features in beta, I hope Mozilla doesn't go apeshit with Firefox 4. I don't want to stay with an outdated Firefox 3.6 just because of the feature creep.
-
@Kiss me I'm Polish said:
Also, the shield updates are for the system only.
If you enable Microsoft Update, the shield will deliver updates for other MS programs, too.
-
So like a good user I "upgraded" to FF 4 b11 from beta 9 - big mistake. Now mozcrt19.dll constantly loads one of my CPU cores to 100%, even though I have 0 tabs open. GG, poster child for FOSS.
Issue is reported here for anyone who cares, but I doubt it'll be addressed in the final build (assuming that ever happens).
-
@ShatteredArm said:
Not necessarily. If you read my original post, the proxy at your WTF company might intercept all SSL traffic and open a new SSL connection between you and the proxy, meaning every single certificate is invalid, no matter what the website does. The HSTS might make sense for normal connections outside of companies vying for the Benito Mussolini Award for Corporate Authoritarianism.
I fail to see the problem. Isn't that what you would want it to do? Or do you trust your proxy admin with your personal details?
Also, TRWTF is that Western Union is (was?) using a certificate that expired a year ago.
-
-
@Nagesh said:
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox-myths#standards_compliant
That's a good article. I've found more than a few DOM bugs in Firefox myself-- as far as I know it's great with CSS, but it's crap when it comes to DOM standards. (I actually have one subscribed in Bugzilla from like 2004 that's never been fixed: disabled fields don't bubble click events. I haven't put a lot of pressure on them to fix this because, natch, the fucking useless-ass W3C doesn't define whether disabled fields should bubble. But every other browser does.)
They need to add "Firefox was the first browser with extensions" on the list, too. That one drives me batty. Just because they are called Toolbars in IE, and have a bad reputation due to malware, doesn't make them somehow a different thing.
-
Firefox 5 by the end of July!
http://www.conceivablytech.com/5673/products/firefox-4-in-march-a-first-look-at-firefox-5/
It's almost as if they're really trying to make things worse.
Firefox Myths