Firefox 16 Pulled After Serious Security Lapse
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@flabdablet said:
Thanks for this. I went and read the relevant Mozilla Security Blog entry and found a comment from somebody with much the same opinion on Mozilla's rapid release insanity as mine. In that comment was a link to an alternative build for Windows called Pale Moon, which looks like exactly what I need as a Firefox 6 replacement for the school I netadmin. I would not have found it without your post. Cheers!
You may also want to have a look at Waterfox, which is a 64-bit-optimised version of Firefox.
Optimized as in "compiled with an optimizing 64-bit compiler without making any actual changes to the code." From what I found on the web, there is one benchmark which shows Waterfox as superior, but it was created with different source versions and configuration and is therefore useless. Leaving aside personal, probably placebo effect based opinions, all other comparisons that have been made don't show Waterfox as a clear winner, often much the opposite. Bottom line seems to be that there's a reason there is no official Firefox 64-bit for Windows, and it's not a conspiracy of Mozilla keeping the superior experience from us.
But from what I understood, flabdablet wasn't looking for a better browser software anyway, but for something to shut up pseudo-technical douches who think all companies are inherently evil and only strive to make the customers more unhappy.
-
@derula said:
Optimized as in "compiled with an optimizing 64-bit compiler without making any actual changes to the code."
It looks like they're also using profile guided optimization, which IIRC is what Mozilla does, but only for 32-bit Windows versions. So there's a bit more to it, though I couldn't say how much difference that actually makes.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan said:
I agree with you right up until the word 'term', the rest is blakeybullshit. That's my term, and it means exactly what I intend it to.Avoiding Firefox upgrades doesn't make someone a tech luddite,
Since it's my term I can define it however I want, and I say it does
@blakeyrat said:
and where does this "not bothering to learn anything" shit come from anyway?
from all the threads and posts where we've seen you have an almost uncanny ability to fail to learn about tools you're ranting about, hence the rant. I'd provide examples, but I actually have better things to do with my time.@blakeyrat said:I do not, and will not, ever support going backwards.
which might explain your propensity to never admit you're wrong.
-
@ASheridan said:
That's my term, and it means exactly what I intend it to.
It means I'm awesome! So awesome that in comparison everybody else sounds like bullshit. Wooo! I love your term!
@ASheridan said:
from all the threads and posts where we've seen you have an almost uncanny ability to fail to learn about tools you're ranting about, hence the rant.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'm pointing out those usability flaws, not because I can't figure the tool out, but because I'm trying to communicate to developers how awful the experience of an average user of their software is? Pointing out that the Apt or Git user experience is horrendous and that the developers obviously gave not one shit for the users of their products is important.
The reality is somewhere in the middle. For example, I admit I don't know how to fix, or what causes, problems in Git. Sometimes when I check-in, it's fine. Sometimes, it'll bitch about "detached head" and I have to back-up my code and start clean. Sometimes I tell Git to ignore a file during check-in, but then when I hit "Sync" it'll bitch that I didn't check-in the file I specifically told it to ignore! (That one is fucking irritating as shit!) So yes I have issues with Git. Part of me doesn't want to learn Git because I'm scare that if I learn this horrible user-hostile software nightmare, I'll be more inclined to like or appreciate horrible user-hostile software nightmares in the future.
But a lot of the complaints I made about Git are philosophical in nature and have nothing to do with my not knowing it well. For example, its corrupting your source code in case of a conflict... that's a horrible, horrible design decision.
@ASheridan said:
which might explain your propensity to never admit you're wrong.
I'll admit I'm wrong when I truly feel I'm wrong. I've done it before on the board. I'd dig up examples but I actually have better things to do with my time.
Look, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine! Say you don't agree and move on. You don't have to make up shit about me. You don't have to put words in my mouth. You don't have to grill me for three weeks like Boomzilla used to do before I started ignoring his useless ass. Just disagree and move on.
I'm here trying to improve the practice of writing software. And maybe make you laugh. That's it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'm pointing out those usability flaws, not because I can't figure the tool out, but because I'm trying to communicate to developers how awful the experience of an average user of their software is? Pointing out that the Apt or Git user experience is horrendous and that the developers obviously gave not one shit for the users of their products is important.
Your OP typically fits this pretty well. But your continued ignorance later in the thread usually says otherwise. Mostly, you remind me of the people in the infomercials who don't have access to whatever miracle gadget is being sold, which is to say, being purposefully incompetent in an unconvincing and humorous way. The way you continued to not understand the basics of APT are perhaps the best example.
@blakeyrat said:
Sometimes, it'll bitch about "detached head" and I have to back-up my code and start clean.
Ugh. I just read up on what that means. This (assuming I understand it) convinces me that Mercurial is better than git and that I should continue to avoid git. FYI...in this case, Mercurial would allow you to commit, at which point you'd have multiple heads (anonymous branches) for that branch, and then you would later merge them together. Or close one of them, or whatever you decided you wanted to do.
It seems like git is allowing users to access stuff at a low level where they can mess things up. There's probably a good reason as to why someone like Linus would need to do this, and some comments I saw say that newer versions of git make it harder to get into this situation, but it confirms my reluctance to invest too much time with it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It means I'm awesome! So awesome that in comparison everybody else sounds like bullshit. Wooo! I love your term!
No, it's my term, and it doesn't mean you're awesome. In-fact, if I could use any single word to describe you, awesome would be very far away from that.
