SharePoint is just so smooth ...



  • Reformatted for convenience:

    Technology: Administration

    Platform: WSSv3; MOSS 2007

    Highlight: No

    Author: ***** (Censored to protect the innocent)

    URLStatus:

    Month: (1) - January

    Year: 2,007




    Well hell, that date formatting is damn tricky to get right ...


    I'm going to have to work with this stuff. Not looking forward to this next assignment.



  •  Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.



  • @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.



  • I disagree. I don't think it's nearly as good as you're making it out to be.

    However, like SharePoint, the people who like it generally don't expect much, don't know anything, don't care, and sign paychecks. Might as well learn some basics.



  • @dhromed said:

     Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    They may well be right. It's certainly one of those tools that facility with it indicates a serious ability to wrestle the sotftware equivalent of Grendel's mother into submission.

    We have a client who requires that the service they buy off us is integrated into ScarePoint, so CTO canvasses all his staff for any experience in it. Myself and one other have encountered it before, so we have bravely volunteered to ascertain the feasibility, and having done so, propose an architectural design for it.

    The problem I have is that it's so big, and there are so many features, that finding out the information that a technical architect needs is a larger job than "just googling". What's more, the real technical detail is contained in manuals that you have to pay for. So not only are you paying lots of money for the tool itself, you also need to pay through the nose for the knowhow to use it. Very much on a par with Micturatorsoft's business model. Shrug. At least we haven't bought into it ourselves.



  • @Xyro said:

    @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.

    Sounds like you haven't used SharePoint 2010, which supports (first class support even) Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE > 7. In fact, using SharePoint 2010 with IE 6 results in it constantly harassing you to get a real browser. It's less clunky and slow too.



  • @Matt Westwood said:

    So not only are you paying lots of money for the tool itself, you also need to pay through the nose for the knowhow to use it.

    That's how you know it's Enterprise Software.



  • SharePoint is one of those tools that is constantly improving. And by that I mean, right around the time you get your desperate, hacked-together workaround completed and deployed, the new SharePoint update comes out that fixes the underlying problem.



  • @Kyanar said:

    @Xyro said:
    @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.

    Sounds like you haven't used SharePoint 2010, which supports (first class support even) Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE > 7. In fact, using SharePoint 2010 with IE 6 results in it constantly harassing you to get a real browser. It's less clunky and slow too.

    Doesn't support Opera, though.



  • @Matt Westwood said:

    @Kyanar said:
    @Xyro said:
    @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.
    Sounds like you haven't used SharePoint 2010, which supports (first class support even) Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE > 7. In fact, using SharePoint 2010 with IE 6 results in it constantly harassing you to get a real browser. It's less clunky and slow too.
    Doesn't support Opera, though.

    LMBRPFY(Let me bold the relevant part for you)



  •  @serguey123 said:

    @Matt Westwood said:

    @Kyanar said:
    @Xyro said:
    @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.
    Sounds like you haven't used SharePoint 2010, which supports (first class support even) Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE > 7. In fact, using SharePoint 2010 with IE 6 results in it constantly harassing you to get a real browser. It's less clunky and slow too.
    Doesn't support Opera, though.

    LMBRPFY(Let me bold the relevant part for you)

    Yeah, because the Ukraine and Kazakhstan aren't countries worth considering are they? I mention those two specifically because Opera is the most common browser used there (http://www.favbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/browsersbycountry.png )

    Opera was a better browser before other browsers were. First to the table with accessibility features, first with tabbed browsing, first with the 'quickdial' screen of the last 9 sites you've visited, available in some incarnation across more platforms than any other browser, and was a leader in web standards support for years before Chrome was even a twinkle in Googles eye. On my home machine (Triple core AMD 3GB ram Fedora 14 - not what would be considered a recent system) it is the only browser I have installed that can manage up to 80+ tabs being open without complaint (admitedly it does slow slightly) and the memory footprint is much better than Chrome with a comparible number of tabs open. Firefox becomes unstable at around the 30-40 tab mark (although I haven't "upgraded" to the latest version of that to see how that handles)

     



  • @ASheridan said:

    Opera was a better browser before other browsers were. First to the table with accessibility features, first with tabbed browsing, first with the 'quickdial' screen of the last 9 sites you've visited, available in some incarnation across more platforms than any other browser, and was a leader in web standards support for years before Chrome was even a twinkle in Googles eye. On my home machine (Triple core AMD 3GB ram Fedora 14 - not what would be considered a recent system) it is the only browser I have installed that can manage up to 80+ tabs being open without complaint (admitedly it does slow slightly) and the memory footprint is much better than Chrome with a comparible number of tabs open. Firefox becomes unstable at around the 30-40 tab mark (although I haven't "upgraded" to the latest version of that to see how that handles)

     



    Over 100 tabs right now. Most image and JS-rich. P4 3.2, 2GB RAM, XP (so ancient machine by today's standards). Works smoothly.

    I was running v8.52 on a Pentium 200, 128MB RAM, and Linux just a few years ago. It wasn't fast, but it could handle ~10 tabs at the same time without swapthrashing. Firefox (2.0 or so back then) thrashed with single tab.



    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard (Still no other browser has it in standard, and Firefox plugin is crap), and the fact it was first browser to offer mouse gestures support.



  • @ASheridan said:

     Yeah, because the Ukraine and Kazakhstan aren't countries worth considering are they?

    They aren't

    @ASheridan said:

    I mention those two specifically because Opera is the most common browser used there (http://www.favbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/browsersbycountry.png )

    Case and point

    @ASheridan said:

     

    Opera was a better browser before other browsers were. First to the table with accessibility features, first with tabbed browsing, first with the 'quickdial' screen of the last 9 sites you've visited, available in some incarnation across more platforms than any other browser, and was a leader in web standards support for years before Chrome was even a twinkle in Googles eye.

    Yay!, history tour!  Remember when Netscape was relevant? and AOL? 

    @ASheridan said:

      

    On my home machine (Triple core AMD 3GB ram Fedora 14 - not what would be considered a recent system) it is the only browser I have installed that can manage up to 80+ tabs being open without complaint (admitedly it does slow slightly) and the memory footprint is much better than Chrome with a comparible number of tabs open. Firefox becomes unstable at around the 30-40 tab mark (although I haven't "upgraded" to the latest version of that to see how that handles)

    And I would keep 80 tabs open because?  When choosing a browser do you consider openning more than 80 tabs an important issue? RAM is dirt cheap now, buy more. 



  • @ASheridan said:

    Yeah, because the Ukraine and Kazakhstan aren't countries worth considering are they?

    Nope.

    Wait, Ukraine has nukes, right? ...hm. Still nope.

    @ASheridan said:

    Opera was a better browser before other browsers were.

    Wow I love fanboys. You know back when I used Mac Classic, around the System 8-era, I'd type speeches very similar to yours. And the funny thing is that they were true: Mac Classic was a better OS than Windows at the time in all of the ways that mattered except, arguably, one. (Linux was a non-entity then.) I mean, when people now, decades later, start saying you gotta learn the CLI so you can script applications, we all just chuckle to ourselves-- we were using super-powerful scripting tools that not only didn't require a CLI, but ran on an OS that literally didn't even have a CLI.

    But here's another funny thing: nobody gave a shit. That didn't stop me, of course, because I was (am?) an obnoxious snot. But man, I've love to apologize to pretty much everybody I did that to back then if only I could.

    So anyway, Opera? Nobody gives a shit. Also stop being a fanboy, it's obnoxious, and it's sure as fuck not going to increase the number of shits given.

    (Oh and here's a bonus pro-tip for free: nobody gives a flying fuck which browser had the feature first. That's a classic Lotus Notes tactic that really, really weakens your position. People aren't selecting a browser in 2003, so it doesn't fucking matter what features Opera had in 2003, so don't waste our time with it.)

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard

    What does "spatial" mean in this context?



  •  @serguey123 said:

    Yay!, history tour!  Remember when Netscape was relevant? and AOL?

     And you missed the part where I mentioned that Opera was available for more platforms than any other? I don't see where that's a history tour, as it's still being used now. What other browser can you say is available on old Java-based phones, new smart phones, every major OS, even the Wii? It's not as an historical an artifact as you believe.

    @serguey123 said:

    And I would keep 80 tabs open because?  When choosing a browser do you consider openning more than 80 tabs an important issue? RAM is dirt cheap now, buy more. 

     

    There's a point at which you should say no to throwing more RAM at a system because some program is using too many resources. Andyes, keeping 80+ tabs open isn't considered normal usage, and it's not something I do all the time, but it was nice to see that for the few times I did try it, Opera handled it beautifully. Chrome did too, but the memory footprint kept me from running too many other things on the system after that, but that's just because of the way Chrome works, and it offers security at the loss of memory, an acceptable tradeoff for me really.

    It's never been a hugely popular browser in the same way that Chrome & Firefox have been, but it has been a great innovator, and without it I'm not sure that the browsers we all use today would be where they are now.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    (Oh and here's a bonus pro-tip for free: nobody gives a flying fuck which browser had the feature first. That's a classic Lotus Notes tactic that really, really weakens your position. People aren't selecting a browser in 2003, so it doesn't fucking matter what features Opera had in 2003, so don't waste our time with it.)

    Yes and no. It does point to a history of innovation, so you might conclude that you're more likely to get new bells and whistles first, assuming that past performance is a predictor of future results. YMMV



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes and no. It does point to a history of innovation, so you might conclude that you're more likely to get new bells and whistles first, assuming that past performance is a predictor of future results. YMMV

    ... no?

    Look at all the innovations Java introduced in 1997. Look closely. Because the innovations you got in 1997 are the only innovations you'll ever see in Java ever again. Hell, by your logic, and based on the feature set it had in 1990, Lotus Notes ought to be able to spontaneously generate matter via telepathic commands at this point.

    To paraphrase your mutual fund manager: "past performance is no indicator of future performance"

    Edit: fixed the butchered version, sorry email readers



  • @ASheridan said:

     

     And you missed the part where I mentioned that Opera was available for more platforms than any other? I don't see where that's a history tour, as it's still being used now. What other browser can you say is available on old Java-based phones, new smart phones, every major OS, even the Wii? It's not as an historical an artifact as you believe

    I don't believe anything, you can use Lynx for all I care, but most people don't care about whatever Opera has to offer, real or imaginary.  Do you think people when picking a browser think:  "Ohh, this people invented something cool years ago, maybe they will do so in the foreseable future" or "This browser also works on every appliance made by men, including my microwave oven, so I can browse while I nuke" or "It can keep more than 80 tabs open without hogging all my memory"

    @ASheridan said:

      

    There's a point at which you should say no to throwing more RAM at a system because some program is using too many resources. Andyes, keeping 80+ tabs open isn't considered normal usage, and it's not something I do all the time, but it was nice to see that for the few times I did try it, Opera handled it beautifully.

    Yeah, maybe, but 3 GB is not it, my PC has 18 and sometimes that is not enough (of course, not for browsing :)

    @ASheridan said:

      

    Chrome did too, but the memory footprint kept me from running too many other things on the system after that, but that's just because of the way Chrome works, and it offers security at the loss of memory, an acceptable tradeoff for me really.

    It is nice that you see that

    @ASheridan said:

      

    It's never been a hugely popular browser in the same way that Chrome & Firefox have been,

    Never wonder why?

     

    Argghh, maybe is me, the other day I was talking with a few Linux admin, and we were discussing browsers and shit one of them said

    "You know what? Firefox uses too much memory so I decided to create my own browser, it is only 6.4 kb long, and now I can browse sooo much easily"

    And the conversation when to trash talk windows xp and how superior linux is.......

    Is that normal?



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard
     

    You mean support for navigatinal LINK tags in the head, that respond to keypresses? Yeah, I guess that's a good feature, and it's unfortunate that pretty much zero sites today use it, even though every is still a hierarchy of pages.

    Nonetheless, I don't use opera because of its stupid full-page zoom and lack of customisation components. Text-zoom + Stylish + Greasmonkey pretty much define my base browsing experience, but there are a hundred little details that annoy me about Opera even though obviously it's a perfectly fine browser.



  • @serguey123 said:

      

    It is nice that you see that

    Thank you

     @serguey123 said:

     

    Argghh, maybe is me, the other day I was talking with a few Linux admin, and we were discussing browsers and shit one of them said

    "You know what? Firefox uses too much memory so I decided to create my own browser, it is only 6.4 kb long, and now I can browse sooo much easily"

    And the conversation when to trash talk windows xp and how superior linux is.......

    Is that normal?

    OK, that really wqould be crazy. I guess I'm coming at this from a web developer POV. For me, I consider it a bad job if it doesn't work on as wide a selection of browsers as possible. I don't consider it wasted effort though. I don't think Operas innovating days are over yet, so I'm waiting to see what comes next.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yes and no. It does point to a history of innovation, so you might conclude that you're more likely to get new bells and whistles first, assuming that past performance is a predictor of future results. YMMV

    ... no? I shall elaborate one of your points in my trademark fashion using my favorite software as examples...

    Look at all the innovations Java introduced in 1997. Look closely. Because the innovations you got in 1997 are the only innovations you'll ever see in Java ever again. Hell, by your logic, and based on the feature set it had in 1990, Lotus Notes ought to be able to spontaneously generate matter via telepathic commands at this point.

    To paraphrase your mutual fund manager: "past performance is no indicator of future performance"

    FTFY


  • @serguey123 said:

    @Matt Westwood said:

    @Kyanar said:
    @Xyro said:
    @dhromed said:

    Tell us more.

    It's very popular, apparently, and it has been suggested to me by two independent parties that furthering my career may involve learning to work with it.

    It's clunky x100 and slow and wishes it was Web 2.0 but only works properly in IE. Although it does earn a point for its WebDAV interface.
    Sounds like you haven't used SharePoint 2010, which supports (first class support even) Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE > 7. In fact, using SharePoint 2010 with IE 6 results in it constantly harassing you to get a real browser. It's less clunky and slow too.
    Doesn't support Opera, though.

    LMBRPFY(Let me bold the relevant part for you)

    I'll bang yer heads together the lot of yer.

    It's not so much the quality of the browsers that's important to us so much as the degree of flexibility we are able to offer our customers. It's neither here nor there to me whether Opera is or is not better than whatever shit you prefer, but it does matter when your customer wants your product to be compatible with it.

    Knowing that Opera won't work with SharePoint is one less set of compatibility testing we have to do.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Yeah, because the Ukraine and Kazakhstan aren't countries worth considering are they?

    Nope.

    Wait, Ukraine has nukes, right? ...hm. Still nope.

    @ASheridan said:

    Opera was a better browser before other browsers were.

    Wow I love fanboys. You know back when I used Mac Classic, around the System 8-era, I'd type speeches very similar to yours. And the funny thing is that they were true: Mac Classic was a better OS than Windows at the time in all of the ways that mattered except, arguably, one. (Linux was a non-entity then.) I mean, when people now, decades later, start saying you gotta learn the CLI so you can script applications, we all just chuckle to ourselves-- we were using super-powerful scripting tools that not only didn't require a CLI, but ran on an OS that literally didn't even have a CLI.

    But here's another funny thing: nobody gave a shit. That didn't stop me, of course, because I was (am?) an obnoxious snot. But man, I've love to apologize to pretty much everybody I did that to back then if only I could.

    So anyway, Opera? Nobody gives a shit. Also stop being a fanboy, it's obnoxious, and it's sure as fuck not going to increase the number of shits given.

    (Oh and here's a bonus pro-tip for free: nobody gives a flying fuck which browser had the feature first. That's a classic Lotus Notes tactic that really, really weakens your position. People aren't selecting a browser in 2003, so it doesn't fucking matter what features Opera had in 2003, so don't waste our time with it.)

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard

    What does "spatial" mean in this context?

    Fuck off the lot of yer. Nothing beats the BBC-B.



  • @dhromed said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard
     

    You mean support for navigatinal LINK tags in the head, that respond to keypresses? Yeah, I guess that's a good feature, and it's unfortunate that pretty much zero sites today use it, even though every is still a hierarchy of pages.

    Nonetheless, I don't use opera because of its stupid full-page zoom and lack of customisation components. Text-zoom + Stylish + Greasmonkey pretty much define my base browsing experience, but there are a hundred little details that annoy me about Opera even though obviously it's a perfectly fine browser.


    No, I mean the ability to move between active elements, i.e. links, fields, and stuff, using Ctrl+arrows, based on their relative locations. So, if I want to reach item in second CSS column, that's to the right of where I am, I can just Ctrl+Right, instead of holding Tab and waiting till it scrolls down through all the elements in this column, before wrapping to the next one (i.e. following the order stuff's defined in HTML). Tab of course is still available, if you like this mode.

    Blakey will eat me, but official name of this is "spatial navigation", and it's quite crucial to me.



    What do you want from zoom? Text-only? Well, I find that one sick, as it breaks the page layout as a whole. But if you want to get this effect, write a single line of UserCSS, select it from the list in View menu, and enjoy. Same as with Stylish, I guess, except integrated. Same song for "UserJS" vs "Greasemonkey", "Adblock" vs "urlfilter", and Noscript vs. F12 key and rightclick -> Site Preferences. Btw, have I mentioned you can have separate, per-site, settings about allowed scripts, allowed plugins, blocked ads, and so on? And it's all in the stock version. Firefox is nearly useless without a bunch of plugins.



    As of the "100 tabs" thing, well, I often file things to "read later". Some of those linger for months now, I think. Not really proud of it, but hey, it's kind of an accidental load test.

    And "dirt cheap" for RAM is still too much for me. I wouldn't be using a 6 year old mainboard and CPU if I could afford parts.



    Yes, I'm a fan of Opera. No, I don't expect everyone to "explicitly support" it, but truth is, you need to go out of your way to support Firefox and not support Opera "along". Amusingly, most of the cases is broken agent sniffing, and switching the user-agent string to Firefox or IE (both options available in Site Preferences, per-site) makes the site "magically" work, despite Opera not enabling any compatibility in the rendering engine.



    And no, I'm not saying "you should switch". I'm saying "IMO, it's perfectly fine browser, downsides you mention come mostly from being used to things being done the Firefox way, now you would know how it really is, except it's tl;dr". Firefox good for you? Use it!



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    @dhromed said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    And, don't forget about spatial navigation from keyboard
     

    You mean support for navigatinal LINK tags in the head, that respond to keypresses? Yeah, I guess that's a good feature, and it's unfortunate that pretty much zero sites today use it, even though every is still a hierarchy of pages.

    Nonetheless, I don't use opera because of its stupid full-page zoom and lack of customisation components. Text-zoom + Stylish + Greasmonkey pretty much define my base browsing experience, but there are a hundred little details that annoy me about Opera even though obviously it's a perfectly fine browser.


    No, I mean the ability to move between active elements, i.e. links, fields, and stuff, using Ctrl+arrows, based on their relative locations. So, if I want to reach item in second CSS column, that's to the right of where I am, I can just Ctrl+Right, instead of holding Tab and waiting till it scrolls down through all the elements in this column, before wrapping to the next one (i.e. following the order stuff's defined in HTML). Tab of course is still available, if you like this mode.

    Blakey will eat me, but official name of this is "spatial navigation", and it's quite crucial to me.



    What do you want from zoom? Text-only? Well, I find that one sick, as it breaks the page layout as a whole. But if you want to get this effect, write a single line of UserCSS, select it from the list in View menu, and enjoy. Same as with Stylish, I guess, except integrated. Same song for "UserJS" vs "Greasemonkey", "Adblock" vs "urlfilter", and Noscript vs. F12 key and rightclick -> Site Preferences. Btw, have I mentioned you can have separate, per-site, settings about allowed scripts, allowed plugins, blocked ads, and so on? And it's all in the stock version. Firefox is nearly useless without a bunch of plugins.



    As of the "100 tabs" thing, well, I often file things to "read later". Some of those linger for months now, I think. Not really proud of it, but hey, it's kind of an accidental load test.

    And "dirt cheap" for RAM is still too much for me. I wouldn't be using a 6 year old mainboard and CPU if I could afford parts.



    Yes, I'm a fan of Opera. No, I don't expect everyone to "explicitly support" it, but truth is, you need to go out of your way to support Firefox and not support Opera "along". Amusingly, most of the cases is broken agent sniffing, and switching the user-agent string to Firefox or IE (both options available in Site Preferences, per-site) makes the site "magically" work, despite Opera not enabling any compatibility in the rendering engine.



    And no, I'm not saying "you should switch". I'm saying "IMO, it's perfectly fine browser, downsides you mention come mostly from being used to things being done the Firefox way, now you would know how it really is, except it's tl;dr". Firefox good for you? Use it!

    The specific problem with SharePoint is that the drop down menus at top of page (crucial because they contain mgmt /config tools) don't work in Opera. I haven't inspected the source code (life's too short, I have other work to do) so I haven't been able to tell exactly what fnality of Opera this is incompatible with.

    Personally I quite like Opera. I switch between it and GC at work, use GC exclusively at home. Tend not to use FF unless I use a couple of specific tools which are better in FF, and I never use IE at all if I can get away with it. Safari sucks golf balls through a hose pipe, and to the East I go not.



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    No, I mean the ability to move between active elements, i.e. links, fields, and stuff, using Ctrl+arrows, based on their relative locations.
     

    I like this feature already.

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Text-only? Well, I find that one sick, as it breaks the page layout as a whole.

    Sometimes text-zoom may break the page layout. SO BE IT. Full Zoom scales all the elements, causing things to overlap and squish up against eachother much more quickly. Wikipedia browsing becomes annoying. Not so with text-only zoom.

    When some idiot has set a fixed-width container too wide for comfort and a too-small font size, full zoom will only exacerbate the reading difficulties, turning reading into a tennis match as I try to read line-by-line, (or god forbid— even scroll horizontally!); while text-zoom creates shorter lines in the same space and thus increases readability.

    Full zoom causes  horizontal scrolling. Text-only does not.

    Ful zoom scales the lines, the graphics, buttons, widgets and all. I don't need that! I can see them just fine! It looks like shit when you scale those anyway!

    In other words, page zoom is the equivalent not of enlarging the page, but of shriking the screen. Can you imagine yourself using a computer at 800600 again? Zoom 200% for that special feeling once more! Hell, even 1024768 feel cramped, yet that is exactly what full page accomplishes.

    Page zoom has no merits and only drawbacks, as far as I'm concerned.

     @bannedfromcoding said:

    But if you want to get this effect, write a single line of UserCSS, select it from the list in View menu, and enjoy. Same as with Stylish, I guess, except integrated. Same song for "UserJS" vs "Greasemonkey", "Adblock" vs "urlfilter", and Noscript vs. F12 key and rightclick -> Site Preferences. Btw, have I mentioned you can have separate, per-site, settings about allowed scripts, allowed plugins, blocked ads, and so on?

    Pretty good, yeah.

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    I often file things to "read later".

    That's what bookmarks are for.

     @bannedfromcoding said:

    I'm saying "IMO, it's perfectly fine browser, downsides you mention come mostly from being used to things being done the Firefox way, now you would know how it really is, except it's tl;dr".

    I'm always open to bullet-style factual discussion on these subjects. :) Often criticism comes from misunderstanding.



  • @dhromed said:

    When some idiot has set a fixed-width container too wide for comfort and a too-small font size, full zoom will only exacerbate the reading difficulties, turning reading into a tennis match as I try to read line-by-line, (or god forbid— even scroll horizontally!); while text-zoom creates shorter lines in the same space and thus increases readability.
     

    I haven't used Opera for a while (my first time was v3.21 way back around 1998 on my 386) but I seem to remember there being a way to turn CSS and even tables off - making it completely readable. There was also an option for "show cached images only" which was handy back in the day with my then 5MB/week quota.



  • @Zemm said:

    @dhromed said:

    When some idiot has set a fixed-width container too wide for comfort and a too-small font size, full zoom will only exacerbate the reading difficulties, turning reading into a tennis match as I try to read line-by-line, (or god forbid— even scroll horizontally!); while text-zoom creates shorter lines in the same space and thus increases readability.
     

    I haven't used Opera for a while (my first time was v3.21 way back around 1998 on my 386) but I seem to remember there being a way to turn CSS and even tables off - making it completely readable. There was also an option for "show cached images only" which was handy back in the day with my then 5MB/week quota.


    Cached images switch is still there. And the "no tables" part is one of the presets in the custom CSS system. I like using the white-on-black-plaintext one on some sites that have distracting layout in the default.

    UserCSS has two parts to it - one is per-page stylesheets, that can be overlaid or replace the original one, other is a collection of tiny "snippets", usually with !important keyword to ensure override, that can be switched on and off from the View menu separately each.



  • All the Opera discussions aside: having developed on top of the Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (aka MOSS) 2007 platform, I wholehartedly agree that it's ... awkward. Definitely NOT the best platform/framework I've encountered from an API point of view. THings are missing, they're buggy, there's a boatload of shitty XML (ahem: CAML), it's utterly slow even on decent hardware and developer support is mediocre at best.

    Yet I can see why end users (in upper management, non technical) like SharePoint: it integrates with Office extremely well*, it lets you build a website or intranet at ease** and it's a robust scalable platform*** that everyone will love and that will accelerate business processes.****

    Now for something good about SharePoint: it does give you a nice head start, as all the boilerplate stuff such as user authentication and authorization, especially on a granular level (such as an item), and it provides a reasonably usable UI as well. So that saves you some time.

    * No, it doesn't. But management doesn't know that.
    ** Despite even WordPress having more content management possibilities out of the box
    *** HAH!
    **** Only if you configure it to not get in the way of the users. If you do, they'll revert to file shares just as quickly as you want them to go use SharePoint.


Log in to reply
 

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