I Hate Firefox
-
@Cassidy said:
...and started the slippery slope of web-pages that only worked in a certain web browser...
Dude, no. That started with Netscape 1.0. People have such short memories--Netscape was usually worse about proprietary extensions than Microsoft. When IE5 came out it was considered a paragon of standards compliance. Of course, by that point Netscape was dying and their only hope was to take the ground-up rewrite that doomed them and shit it directly into the mouths of the Open Sores community where it would torment handsome, intelligent, unappreciated, handsome developers whose only recourse was letting their frustrations out in a forum post.
-
@toothrot said:
Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default
Hmm.. I did not, but I still question much of the idea. If it were blacklist-only I could at least understand that they are trying to protect against extremely intrusive ads. But most ad-blockers just block everything (or nearly everything), which I find unacceptable.
@toothrot said:
If it can prod some advertisers to be less sleazy/annoying, I think it's a good thing.
I agree with your aims but I think most people just use ad-blocking software because they are assholes. Those people suck.
-
@Obfuscator said:
If you ask me XmlHttpRequest was the fastest way of breaking the web and sending us all head first into this 2.0 shit.
Eh, I kind of think the whole web app thing is stupid, but here we are: nobody came up with anything better that managed to gain enough ground. I don't think XHR caused that, what XHR did is make web apps more tolerable. As for "breaking the web", I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you one of those people who think the web should still be a bundle of static, text-only HTML documents? Blegh.
-
@Cassidy said:
I think they got a kicking over that because it was a browser-specific language and started the slippery slope of web-pages that only worked in a certain web browser, and also that the VBS engine covered Outlook, WMP and Win Explorer offered a greater number of attack vectors.
This is true, but the whole "VBScript breaks the web because it only works on one OS", while it is a valid point, isn't Microsoft's fault. Microsoft was simply implementing the spec they were handed-- and since they already had a VBScript interface that worked nearly identically to their existing JScript interface, they said, "sure, put it in, why not? Spec says we can."
@toothrot said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Adblock is for immoral shitheads.
Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default
Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus
Adblock Plus introduces the Acceptable Ads initiative: Support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a nonintrusive way.
If it can prod some advertisers to be less sleazy/annoying, I think it's a good thing.
When the fuck did that happen? I hate AdBlock slightly less now.
It still needs a "blacklist" mode though. Fuck, that FAQ even says as much right in it:
@AdBlock FAQ said:
Are you stupid? Nobody wants this!
The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only.
Yeah, dumbshits, it's called a "blacklist" and it's the way AdBlock should have worked from day-fucking-one you enormous douchenozzles!
-
@toothrot said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Adblock is for immoral shitheads.
Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default
Adblock Plus introduces the Acceptable Ads initiative: Support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a nonintrusive way.
If it can prod some advertisers to be less sleazy/annoying, I think it's a good thing.
toothrot has a point.
Killed the flash plugin because of admakers coding the flash ads so badly (the chrome for linux ads were a real problem) that those kept eating 100% cpu.
Running "top" revealed that flash was eating my cpu and looking up the params revealed ads being the issue.
Edit: cs ate the post so:
I don't really mind text and static image ads, though.
-
@roelforg said:
Edit: cs ate the post so:
How does that keep happening? I've never had CS chop off part of a typed-in message. Are you using the rich text editor?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@roelforg said:
Edit: cs ate the post so:
How does that keep happening? I've never had CS chop off part of a typed-in message. Are you using the rich text editor?
Rich? Seems to me that a text editor this buggy is a very poor editor indeed!
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@roelforg said:
Edit: cs ate the post so:
How does that keep happening? I've never had CS chop off part of a typed-in message. Are you using the rich text editor?
Rich? Seems to me that a text editor this buggy is a very poor editor indeed!
I only know that cs (or the editor, which i can't get along with) just drops some lines.
Noticed html typo's will cause problems, copy&paste is a pain because you have to keep modding html so it doesn't warp when posted (remove extra divs, styles and stuff).
-
@roelforg said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@roelforg said:
Edit: cs ate the post so:
How does that keep happening? I've never had CS chop off part of a typed-in message. Are you using the rich text editor?
Rich? Seems to me that a text editor this buggy is a very poor editor indeed!
I only know that cs (or the editor, which i can't get along with) just drops some lines.
Noticed html typo's will cause problems, copy&paste is a pain because you have to keep modding html so it doesn't warp when posted (remove extra divs, styles and stuff).If you're seeing HTML, you're probably using the plain editor. I've never had it lose something I've entered so my guess is your have badly-formed HTML which is being truncated. Also, where are you copying-and-pasting a bunch of HTML that needs cleanup?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
5) Status barrrrrrrrrraarrrrrrrrrrrrg!
I don't even use it.
@Lorne Kates said:
3) Why the goddamn hell is a lowercase "o" tucked way the fucking hell underneath the curve of an "r"? Oh, right, someone, somewhere, decided it would be fun to push an experimental font renderer into production.
It's shitty. I don't really remember it anymore, since I turned it off. I can't figure out how to turn it back on and see.
@Lorne Kates said:
Random stuttering during scrolling and typing.
That happens, yes, when it's under strain. From lots of tabs and memory. It would simply cease to update the rendering in response to keyboard input, but it would actually update its internal state, and blowing at the mouse would suddenly update the render area.
Very, very annoying. It stopped doing that since about 6 months, though.
@Lorne Kates said:
2) Flash videos stutter and skip.
Can't repro that.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
At work, I run Chrome, because I like the developer tools there a lot better than Firebug.
Please tell me why, so that I might improve my development process.
-
@dhromed said:
@Lorne Kates said:
5) Status barrrrrrrrrraarrrrrrrrrrrrg!
I don't even use it.
Some do, some don't. I believe the consensus was "Hide it by default, fine, but don't remove it". Add-ons to the rescue. Sigh.@dhromed said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Random stuttering during scrolling and typing.
That happens, yes, when it's under strain. From lots of tabs and memory. It would simply cease to update the rendering in response to keyboard input, but it would actually update its internal state, and blowing at the mouse would suddenly update the render area.
That used to happen on a rebooted machine, on a restarted FF, with just one tab open. I'm glad it's (mostly) fixed, because it was almost the straw that chromed my camel's browser.
@dhromed said:
@Lorne Kates said:
2) Flash videos stutter and skip.
Can't repro that.
I know. I'm wondering if it's Flash + XP, since all the computers I use are still on XP. I'm getting a Windows 7 machine at work, so I'll check on that.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I'm wondering if it's Flash + XP, since all the computers I use are still on XP. I'm getting a Windows 7 machine at work, so I'll check on that.
I recall Flash on Firefox/Linux stuttering a lot, too. It was unusable in fullscreen mode, which really interfered with my
pornimportant work-related teleconferencingokay it was really porn. I attributed this to Flash on Linux being more of a cruel joke than an actual software product, but maybe it was Firefox's fault. Chrome plays Flash beautifully.
-
@dhromed said:
@pkmnfrk said:
At work, I run Chrome, because I like the developer tools there a lot better than Firebug.
Please tell me why, so that I might improve my development process.
It's pretty similar to Firebug, except:
- Resources tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Gives easy access to cookies and HTML5 local storage for the current tab.
- Network tab: Firebug has one, but Chrome gives more detail in drill-down for an object, such as the cookies sent, a preview of the object and a timing tab which shows a breakdown of network transfer time, etc..
- Profiles tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Allows you to profile CPU time and obtain heap snapshots.
- Audits tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Gives hints on how to improve performance of your site.
I know some Firefox extensions provide similar functionality, but Chrome puts it all in a single place.
-
There's so many things wrong with firefox nowadays I don't even know where to start.
Desperately trying to make it look more like Chrome for example. If I'd wanted to use Chrome, I'd use Chrome. If you feel the need to copy something, copy the process-per-tab model, FFS!
OTOH, I can't remember when firefox did crash the last time. It's actually pretty stable since the plugin process seperation.@morbiuswilters said:
Adblock is for immoral shitheads.
I don't want to get eye cancer. Without AdBlock, lots of websites look like 90s geocities.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@toothrot said:
Are you on drugs or something? WTF is it to you how I want my browsing experience to be?Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default
Hmm.. I did not, but I still question much of the idea. If it were blacklist-only I could at least understand that they are trying to protect against extremely intrusive ads. But most ad-blockers just block everything (or nearly everything), which I find unacceptable.
Anyway, there appears this misconception that I think that Firefox is the best thing since sliced bread. It isn't. It devours memory quicker than Cookie Monster does with cookies, the development team have some ideas (or at least they used to a couple of years ago) that left me speechless, they claim they will zealously follow the W3C rules even if those are completely bonkers (the box model comes to mind), and the latest numbering scheme is nothing short of pathetic. And they [u]still[/u] don't provide a 64-bits version, because they don't see the point. Never mind what the "customer" wants.
But it has to be said: it's damn stable. And I don't get any of the funny Flash problems either.
-
@Severity One said:
Are you on drugs or something? WTF is it to you how I want my browsing experience to be?
If you are blocking ads then you are an unethical shithead who is taking content without providing value to the content provider. Fuck off and die.
@Severity One said:
But it has to be said: it's damn stable.
My multitude of experience would prove otherwise. It seems like most people here don't use the browser very much, though, so maybe that's a differentiator.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If you are blocking ads then you are an unethical shithead who is taking content without providing value to the content provider.
If I were downloading the ads I'd have the ad providers pay for me ignoring their ads. Wouldn't that be unethical?
-
@topspin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
If you are blocking ads then you are an unethical shithead who is taking content without providing value to the content provider.
If I were downloading the ads I'd have the ad providers pay for me ignoring their ads. Wouldn't that be unethical?
This line of conversation will result in you saying "Durp dee durr advertising has no effect on me because I'm a special little snowflake unlike everyone else on Earth". I have no interest in hearing whatever bullshit rationalizations you come up with for your unethical behavior. I don't notice ads most of the time but the truth is they affect me, just like they do with everyone else. This is just like the bullshit spouted by pirates: "I wouldn't buy it anyway so they're not losing money when I steal it... blah blah blah"
-
@morbiuswilters said:
If you are blocking ads then you are an unethical shithead who is taking content without providing value to the content provider.
That's a very one-sided assertion. You're assuming that the ads are always legitimate in the first place, and there are plenty of users who would disagree.
For example, is it ethical for the content provider to put up a Flash ad that
- redlines one or more cores even if I'm not currently viewing that page?
- plays music or sound, even if I'm not currently viewing that page, and even if I already have music playing from elsewhere?
- tries to get me to click on their ad and be directed to their page, without any browser tooltip showing me where it is I'm being sent to?
Is it ethical for a content provider to place ads on their page without having pre-screen them for malicious content? I've had ads on perfectly legitimate sites try to deposit "drive-by downloads" and malware onto my system before.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
That's a very one-sided assertion. You're assuming that the ads are always legitimate in the first place, and there are plenty of users who would disagree.
For example, is it ethical for the content provider to put up a Flash ad that
- redlines one or more cores even if I'm not currently viewing that page?
- plays music or sound, even if I'm not currently viewing that page, and even if I already have music playing from elsewhere?
- tries to get me to click on their ad and be directed to their page, without any browser tooltip showing me where it is I'm being sent to?
Is it ethical for a content provider to place ads on their page without having pre-screen them for malicious content? I've had ads on perfectly legitimate sites try to deposit "drive-by downloads" and malware onto my system before.
You have the same recourse you have with any other product in a free market economy: if you don't like the product, you don't buy (in this case visit) it.
In other words, if a site puts up bad ads, stop visiting the site.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This is just like the bullshit spouted by pirates: "I wouldn't buy it anyway so they're not losing money when I steal it... blah blah blah"
Be very careful going down that road. There's some pretty sound research to back that position up, and if you take a position on the other side of it, you end up supporting SOPA and losing all credibility to people who actually care enough to think about issues instead of mindlessly parroting bogus statistics made up out of thin air by the entertainment industry.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
For example, is it ethical for the content provider to put up a Flash ad that
- redlines one or more cores even if I'm not currently viewing that page?
- plays music or sound, even if I'm not currently viewing that page, and even if I already have music playing from elsewhere?
- tries to get me to click on their ad and be directed to their page, without any browser tooltip showing me where it is I'm being sent to?
Right, except you're not blocking harmful ads, you're blocking all ads because you are an unethical shithead. If Flash ads are such a problem install Flashblock.
@Mason Wheeler said:
Is it ethical for a content provider to place ads on their page without having pre-screen them for malicious content? I've had ads on perfectly legitimate sites try to deposit "drive-by downloads" and malware onto my system before.
Cry me a fucking river. Yeah, sometimes hackers and assholes fuck things up. If you're so scared of malware that you have to disable ads then close your browser and go back to using Lynx or Gopher. There are probably a dozen ways you're more likely to get malware than advertising but you'll latch on to this flimsy excuse to rationalize the decision you already made to block ads.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I have no interest in hearing whatever bullshit rationalizations you come up with for your unethical behavior.
Well, I don't think it's unethical and I don't give a fuck.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This is just like the bullshit spouted by pirates: "I wouldn't buy it anyway so they're not losing money when I steal it... blah blah blah"
Be very careful going down that road. There's some pretty sound research to back that position up, and if you take a position on the other side of it, you end up supporting SOPA and losing all credibility to people who actually care enough to think about issues instead of mindlessly parroting bogus statistics made up out of thin air by the entertainment industry.
You are a fucking retard, plain and simple; yeah, being against piracy is the same as supporting SOPA you single-neuroned asshole. I guess I can start peeping through my hot neighbor's curtains because what she doesn't know won't hurt her. Crime is perfectly justifiable as long as I can argue that nobody is the wiser. Here's a thought: maybe people should actually pay for the shit they use to compensate the people who did the work. Wow, I'm blowing my fucking mind here.
tl;dr Die in a fire. I already said I don't want to hear your bullshit rationalizations. I hope you get nut cancer.
-
@topspin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I have no interest in hearing whatever bullshit rationalizations you come up with for your unethical behavior.
Well, I don't think it's unethical and I don't give a fuck.I hope somebody who doesn't think it's unethical robs your house and burns it down with you inside it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Severity One said:
Are you on drugs or something? WTF is it to you how I want my browsing experience to be?
If you are blocking ads then you are an unethical shithead who is taking content without providing value to the content provider. Fuck off and die.
Yes, because looking at ads to increase the amount of revenue the site owner recieves from the advertising company is the only way to provide value to the content provider.
I'm not saying everyone who uses adblock makes a donation to every webcomic they read and browser game they play, but some do. Whether or not that makes up for the lost revenue on ads, I have no clue.
Personally, I add an exception to my blocker if I like the content enough to come back for more. I'll block the ads again if they get too distracting, but that's rare.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You have the same recourse you have with any other product in a free market economy: if you don't like the product, you don't buy (in this case visit) it.
Yeah, exactly! That's what my adblocker does!
@blakeyrat said:
In other words, if a site puts up bad ads, stop visiting the site.
Oh, wait, that's not what you meant...
Actually, the only ads I block any more are the ones that cause the popups when you mouse over words that look like links. I hate those. But flaming people who block ads is just retarded. You should really be flaming the people who don't block those popup ads, because they're just cooperating with evil.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I hope somebody who doesn't think it's unethical robs your house and burns it down with you inside it.
That's a hilariously stupid thing to say.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Right, except you're not blocking harmful ads, you're blocking all ads because you are an unethical shithead.
...you'll latch on to this flimsy excuse to rationalize the decision you already made to block ads.
Wow, we're just full of wild, completely unsupported assumptions this afternoon. For the record, I don't actually have adblock installed. I was simply pointing out that taking such a hard-line stance on the subject is a bit short-sighted.
@morbiuswilters said:
Here's a thought: maybe people should actually pay for the shit they use to compensate the people who did the work.
First, you're assuming a causal relationship that does not necessarily exist (and usually does not, in fact.) When a published work is sold, the money does not go to the people who actually did the work of creating it; it goes to the publisher. Creators get screwed seven ways from Sunday. Why do you think so many content creators are publicly asking, even *begging* people to pirate their work?
Second, you're quite naively assuming that there's only one effect from piracy, and that that one effect is negative. Neil Gaiman used to believe so too, until he got a bit more experience in real-world causality. It was a real eye-opener for him when he started to understand the rest of the picture. You really should check out his thoughts on the subject.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@roelforg said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@roelforg said:
Edit: cs ate the post so:
How does that keep happening? I've never had CS chop off part of a typed-in message. Are you using the rich text editor?
Rich? Seems to me that a text editor this buggy is a very poor editor indeed!
I only know that cs (or the editor, which i can't get along with) just drops some lines.
Noticed html typo's will cause problems, copy&paste is a pain because you have to keep modding html so it doesn't warp when posted (remove extra divs, styles and stuff).If you're seeing HTML, you're probably using the plain editor. I've never had it lose something I've entered so my guess is your have badly-formed HTML which is being truncated. Also, where are you copying-and-pasting a bunch of HTML that needs cleanup?
When i need to quote stuff on fora from other websites, i copy&paste from the orig site in the "rich" editor of the forum.
Then i check preview for formatting problems, click the "html" button on the editor to switch to raw and filter out extra html.
-
I noticed that this thread has managed to go two pages without mentioning Pale Moon. OP: have you tried it? If so, have you found it to be more or less stable than FF? You would admittedly have to run it in Wine since there's no Linux version yet, so it might be more trouble than it's worth just for Web browsing.
I recently started using it and couldn't be happier. I can browse problem-free with upwards of fifty tabs open. I also noticed that the Flash video stuttering problem mentioned above doesn't happen in Pale Moon.
-
I use firefox, I haven't seen it crash in ages; I have had plugins crash, particularly flash, but firefox stays running informing you a plugin on the page crashed.
I would suspect there is another issue causing the problem, possibly:
hardware malfunction
broken or malicious software
broken or malicious wep pages
bugged emacs ctrl-butterfly macro
squirells trying to hack your router
hippies on your lawn
-
@morbiuswilters said:
...Chrome has better developer tools than Firefox, I would say.
Whilst I agree with most of your rant against Firefox (it pissed me off at 4.0 and I jumped ship to Chrome then for regular browsing), Firefox still has it on developer tools when you pick a few nice plugins. Chrome's developer tools have improved over time and are almost as good as Firebug now, but the Chrome version of Web Developer is a worthless piece of junk. Although I still generally work in Chrome first, I tend to start up Firefox whenever I need to go all inspecty on a page. A bit less these days as Chrome's tools improve, but still sometimes.
Regarding your rant on Opera, sure, hardly anyone uses it, but still more than IE7 in some circumstances. But it takes next to no time to get any funnies in Opera cleaned up once everything's working properly in Chrome, Safari and Firefox, so why not? Not like IE < 9 fixes and polyfills. And Opera starts much faster than Firefox so I find it very handy for those second-browser tasks, like testing a site without being logged in.
-
You're totally drunk if you think that Firefox has better developer tools than Webkit.
Webkit's dev tools blow the hell out of Firefox, and doesn't even need any plugins.
-
@gu3st said:
You're totally drunk if you think that Firefox has better developer tools than Webkit.
Webkit's dev tools blow the hell out of Firefox, and doesn't even need any plugins.Sure, Firefox's built-in developer tools are crap, but that's not the point. Load up Firebug, Web Developer, and Rainbow, and suddenly it's better than Chrome. But before you go all fanboi on me, read what I said:
@rosko said:Although I still generally work in Chrome first, I tend to start up Firefox whenever I need to go all inspecty on a page. A bit less these days as Chrome's tools improve, but still sometimes.
Sometimes, the Chrome tools just annoy me and I revert to Firefox/Firebug/Web Developer. But Chrome's tools are catching up pretty fast.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Chrome has had process-per-tab for 4 years now and Firefox still doesn't have it.
A further testament to how behind Firefox is: Internet Explorer has had it since version 8.
@roelforg said:
I have 10-15 tabs at any given moment and ff set to load em at boot. It's very stable.
I can make Firefox freeze with five tabs. On the other hand, I can have Chrome running with thirty without complaint. Firefox is also quite crash prone and more often than not I have to kill it. Chrome rarely crashes and when it does, it's because Flash is being a bitch.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@toothrot said:
Anyone claiming that Adblock isn't blacklist-only has never actually used it or really wasn't paying attention when they installed it. I've used AdBlock for a long time and by default it doesn't block anything. However, the AdBlock developers apparently felt the need to be extra helpful and so when you install AdBlock you are given an option to subscribe to some block-lists, BUT, you can simply skip those and start with nothing blocked by default and then as you go along you decide what you want to block. I learned my lesson a long time ago before AdBlock, when I copied a big long list of websites into my Hosts file and then later discovered that buried in that list were a few legitimate sites that I wanted to access.Maybe you already know, but adblock now allows some non-intrusive ads by default
Hmm.. I did not, but I still question much of the idea. If it were blacklist-only I could at least understand that they are trying to protect against extremely intrusive ads. But most ad-blockers just block everything (or nearly everything), which I find unacceptable.
As for ad-blocking in general, all the people screaming that blocking ads is immoral, unethical and kills puppies never admit the reason that ad-blocking exists in the first place. It isn't because somebody decided they want to be an asshole and fuck over people who run websites. Programs like AdBlock were created for one reason and one reason only -- because of all the assholes who cram their websites so full of annoying bullshit that it's impossible concentrate on the actual content, aka the only reason I came to your shitty website.
If you want to be an asshole and cram your website full of annoying shit, that's your business and you're free to do what you want. And I'm going to block all your annoying bullshit. Don't like it? Fuck you. Block me from accessing your site. You can do it -- there are ways to tell if someone is blocking ads. But funny thing -- nobody does it. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe they don't want to see a huge drop in traffic? If you don't like ad-blocking, you can do something about it -- quit filling your websites full of annoying bullshit. And then I will uninstall AdBlock.
-
El_heffe, I think you win the Internet today.
-
@El_Heffe said:
Anyone claiming that Adblock isn't blacklist-only has never actually used it or really wasn't paying attention when they installed it.
Hello! You are missing the fucking point! I am here to convey to you the fucking point so perhaps you will not miss the fucking point in the future!
AdBlock has a blacklist based on the domain the ad is served from. If you (or the developers of AdBlock) knew anything about Internet advertising at all you would realize that this is what we in the industry call "fucking useless"! This is because ads are served from these large computer systems known as "ad exchanges". You've probably heard of DoubleClick, it is an ad exchange. A lesser-known one is Atlas/Microsoft Advertiser Solutions.
Ad exchanges serve up "good" ads (non-intrusive), "bad" ads (Flash page takeovers), and everything in-between. They serve them to sites you like as well as sites you do not like. If you're a user of AdBlock, and you want to support all websites except those that do page takeovers, that is currently literally impossible to do based on AdBlock's design. That is why AdBlock's design is what we in the industry call "a piece of shit". Even completely ignoring the moral aspects, it's technically incorrect.
When I (or Morbs, presumably) say that AdBlock should be based on a blacklist, I mean that it should have a blacklist for the domains the ads appear on. That way, only sites that served up ads you find objectionable would suffer, instead of sites that just happen to use the same exchange as another site somewhere else that serves up "objectionable" ads. Since AdBlock's own fucking FAQ I posted just a few posts ago you dumbshit states quite clearly that they do not yet have this feature, I can confidently say El Heffe here is a moron.
Oh and while I'm angry and ranting, why is it that people who block ads never have any fucking clue how the fucking Internet advertising industry fucking even works, and typically haven't even fucking heard of an ad exchange? Probably because people who actually know shit realize ads are harmless and don't block them like fucking dicks. Hey maybe inject some fucking knowledge into your fucking brain for once, you ignorant asshole?
@El_Heffe said:
Programs like AdBlock were created for one reason and one reason only -- because of all the assholes who cram their websites so full of annoying bullshit that it's impossible concentrate on the actual content, aka the only reason I came to your shitty website.
AdBlock was designed to block every ad on every site all the time. If it was designed to do anything other than that, it was designed by a fucking idiot who did it wrong. Because right now, that's all it's good for.
@El_Heffe said:
If you want to be an asshole and cram your website full of annoying shit, that's your business and you're free to do what you want. And I'm going to block all your annoying bullshit.
Yes, but right now that's not what you're fucking doing because the broken-ass design of AdBlock makes that impossible to do.
The funny thing is I actually agree with your sentiment: I have no problem with people blocking sites they find truly offensive. There are some sites I'd use that on myself. What I do object do is that AdBlock makes that impossible to do without collaterally damaging the rest of the Internet.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
El_heffe, I think you win the Internet today.
Hey Mason maybe you should wait 5 minutes for someone with an IQ above 60 to respond to El Heffe's bullshit before hitching your reputation to his stupid-ass opinions.
-
@esoterik said:
hardware malfunction
Unlikely; I've experienced this on several laptops and desktops.
@esoterik said:
broken or malicious software
Does Linux count?
@esoterik said:
broken or malicious wep pages
I've seen this for years, regardless of the page. Also, a broken page should not be able to crash the whole browser. That's just shitty browser design. Chrome does not crash when viewing the same pages, so even if the cause is broken/malicious pages Firefox still blows goats.
@esoterik said:
bugged emacs ctrl-butterfly macro
No. Stop it. I don't feel like another xkcd rant right now.
@esoterik said:
hippies on your lawn
I already shot them just to be safe.
-
@rosko said:
Regarding your rant on Opera, sure, hardly anyone uses it, but still more than IE7 in some circumstances.
I think I've seen more WebTV hits than Opera hits.
@rosko said:
But it takes next to no time to get any funnies in Opera cleaned up once everything's working properly in Chrome, Safari and Firefox, so why not?
It would have to take no time. If it takes 10 minutes to make Opera work that's, like, $50 wasted. Opera is not worth $50. In fact, even if Opera works perfectly I'm tempted to just set up a redirect for Opera users to a drawing of goat balls I did with crayon. Because I hate Opera. It's like seeing a Yugo on the highway; it makes me ashamed of humanity.
@rosko said:
Not like IE < 9 fixes and polyfills.
Making old IE work makes me money, though. Also, it's not as hard as people claim if you code defensively.
-
@rosko said:
Load up Firebug, Web Developer, and Rainbow, and suddenly it's better than Chrome.
I find I prefer Chrome's tools to Firebug + WD, but at least Firefox is competitive here. (I listed why somewhere above in a nifty little UL.) So if you prefer Firebug, that's fine, I don't hate you. I have no idea what Rainbow is. I Googled it and all I got was some experimental extension that allows webcam access via Javascript; I doubt that's what you meant.
-
The program I use is also Mozilla-based, it has no toolbar, no menu, no Flash, no Google, no icons; it work by you have various keyboard command, including rewind, script on/off, image on/off, subframe on/off, plugin on/off, meta-refresh on/off, duplicate frame, view frame at top, cookie editor, relative URL entry (instead of the absolute URL entry that all other browsers use; I hate absolute URL entry so I changed it to relative), etc. I also added gopher so that it can be use with gopher as well.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dhromed said:
@pkmnfrk said:
At work, I run Chrome, because I like the developer tools there a lot better than Firebug.
Please tell me why, so that I might improve my development process.
It's pretty similar to Firebug, except:
- Resources tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Gives easy access to cookies and HTML5 local storage for the current tab.
- Network tab: Firebug has one, but Chrome gives more detail in drill-down for an object, such as the cookies sent, a preview of the object and a timing tab which shows a breakdown of network transfer time, etc..
- Profiles tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Allows you to profile CPU time and obtain heap snapshots.
- Audits tab: Firebug doesn't have one. Gives hints on how to improve performance of your site.
I know some Firefox extensions provide similar functionality, but Chrome puts it all in a single place.
Firebug's network tab has had that drill-down for a while, and IIRC Chrome only caught up to the level of detail in it last year some time. The timing info is available on a tooltip (a tab would be better for copy/paste but the info is there, and is more detailed). Cookies are shown, but not split into a nice list like the get/post parameters are. In short, Chrome had to play catch-up, now Firebug has to.
The other points are true, and another reason I usually use Chrome these days. But I sometimes switch to Firefox to use Web Developer (which is crap on Chrome) and Rainbow Color Tools, when doing more CSS-related work (which isn't often these days as I can palm most of that off to someone else!)
-
Now that the usual AdBlock vitriol has been slung either which way, a couple points:
1) AdBlock has "Disabled on this page" and "Disable on [domain]" options. I've used them to allow blocked elements on blocked sites before. I don't know for sure if it allows 3rd party elements through, so I may or may not be right.
2) AdBlock will allow you to block any element. Be creative. Trying to read a comic that has a fuckhuge masthead that forces you to scroll down a half page, and you're trying to read through the archives. BLOCK! Comment system uses a 3rd party to host avatar images, and that 3rd party is a bloody fucking ass slow piece of shit that slows down the entire page? BLOCK! Tag cloud filled with racist slurs or other NSFW material? BLOCK.
2a) You can adblock swaths of javascript on a page. I have Hotmail's shitty half-assed attempt at ajaxifying their page blocked, because every five seconds it gobbled CPU and made the "refreshing" icon spin.
3) I've encountered sites that detect AdBlock installations (somehow), and redirect to a page that says "Can you disabled AdBlock please? Thanks". Fair enough.
3a) I call bullshit on both sides of this argument. Without taking a side, I don't recognize any "implied contract" with any website to view their ads. That's what Terms of Service and/or personal appeals via blog/news posts are for. I also don't recognize anyone's "right" to consume a website. If an explicit contract exists (agian via ToS, blog, etc), then it needs to be obeyed.
4) Personally, I'd love to see the entire advertising industry burn to the ground like the insidious, scummy cancer it is, taking every SEO shit organization with it. Then we can rebuild the industry on a fertile ground of sown with ash and manure, and come up with something we all like.
On a side note, after having spent the weekend cleaning some malware form my wife's computer, I'd like to extend a personal "fuck you" to the Java Plug-in, and personally encourage each and everyone one of you to uninstall it from any computer you have access to. Anyone who programs a website that uses the Java Plug-In is either a malware maker, or a clueless asshole who needs to be nose-raped into the 21st century, and then upon their arrival, be murdered.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
On a side note, after having spent the weekend cleaning some malware form my wife's computer, I'd like to extend a personal "fuck you" to the Java Plug-in, and personally encourage each and everyone one of you to uninstall it from any computer you have access to. Anyone who programs a website that uses the Java Plug-In is either a malware maker, or a clueless asshole who needs to be nose-raped into the 21st century, and then upon their arrival, be murdered.
Finally some common ground!
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Now that the usual AdBlock vitriol has been slung either which way, a couple points:
1) AdBlock has "Disabled on this page" and "Disable on [domain]" options. I've used them to allow blocked elements on blocked sites before. I don't know for sure if it allows 3rd party elements through, so I may or may not be right.
2) AdBlock will allow you to block any element. Be creative. Trying to read a comic that has a fuckhuge masthead that forces you to scroll down a half page, and you're trying to read through the archives. BLOCK! Comment system uses a 3rd party to host avatar images, and that 3rd party is a bloody fucking ass slow piece of shit that slows down the entire page? BLOCK! Tag cloud filled with racist slurs or other NSFW material? BLOCK.
2a) You can adblock swaths of javascript on a page. I have Hotmail's shitty half-assed attempt at ajaxifying their page blocked, because every five seconds it gobbled CPU and made the "refreshing" icon spin.
3) I've encountered sites that detect AdBlock installations (somehow), and redirect to a page that says "Can you disabled AdBlock please? Thanks". Fair enough.
3a) I call bullshit on both sides of this argument. Without taking a side, I don't recognize any "implied contract" with any website to view their ads. That's what Terms of Service and/or personal appeals via blog/news posts are for. I also don't recognize anyone's "right" to consume a website. If an explicit contract exists (agian via ToS, blog, etc), then it needs to be obeyed.
4) Personally, I'd love to see the entire advertising industry burn to the ground like the insidious, scummy cancer it is, taking every SEO shit organization with it. Then we can rebuild the industry on a fertile ground of sown with ash and manure, and come up with something we all like.
Thank you. It's good to see someone with an IQ of over 60 weighing in with actual knowledgeable commentary on the subject. ;)
