A pre-emptive "Fuck You" to Mozilla
-
@flabdablet said:
@blakeyrat said:
@flabdablet said:
(git) that you personally found unfamiliar enough to be unusable,
Git is unusable.
Australis is unusable.
git-unusable is a plugin for git that blakeyrat accidentally installed.
Australis is a plugin for Firefox that you can't uninstall.
They do the same thing!
-
Community Server is unusable.
-
-
Community Server wasn't designed.
-
Community Server wasn't.
-
-
Pac-Man is naked and so should you.
-
I'm a throttled cheese canoe!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Git is unusable.
Clearly, then, miracles are happening every day by the millions, as people all over the world do the impossible by using git. You do understand the difference between "I am unable to do x" and "x is impossible," don't you?
-
@barfoo said:
You do understand the difference between "I am unable to do x" and "x is impossible," don't you?
There isn't necessarily a difference. You might not be able to "do x" because "doing x" is impossible.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@barfoo said:
You do understand the difference between "I am unable to do x" and "x is impossible," don't you?
There isn't necessarily a difference. You might not be able to "do x" because "doing x" is impossible.Yeah, but, c'mon, we all know that's not the case here.
-
-
-
@Ben L. said:
@boomzilla said:
git( is racist)+Filed under: git is racist
git is racist is racist
-
@El_Heffe said:
Not necessarily, no. But in this case there clearly is.@barfoo said:
You do understand the difference between "I am unable to do x" and "x is impossible," don't you?
There isn't necessarily a difference. You might not be able to "do x" because "doing x" is impossible.
A vast difference.
-
@barfoo said:
@blakeyrat said:
Git is unusable.
Clearly, then, miracles are happening every day by the millions, as people all over the world do the impossible by using git. You do understand the difference between "I am unable to do x" and "x is impossible," don't you?1. "define:unusable" = not fit to be used
2. "define:unable" = lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something
3. "define:impossible" = not able to occur, exist, or be done1 and 3 are not the same thing. blakey knows this, you do not. Perhaps you should stop using them and regress to a caveman-level existence in front of a terminal running git? It seems like that would be more your speed.
As a bonus, instead of wasting your time posting on internet forums, you could maybe wank yourself to death while watching the flickering cursor. I'd call that a win for humankind.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
the flickering cursor.
If your victim is still using a CRT, secretly place a strobe in their darkened room and make their screen turn occasionally black or flicker like a bad fluorescent tube.
-
@Ben L. said:
@flabdablet said:
Australis is the Git of browsers@blakeyrat said:
@flabdablet said:
(git) that you personally found unfamiliar enough to be unusable,
Git is unusable.
Australis is unusable.
git-unusable is a plugin for git that blakeyrat accidentally installed.
Australis is a plugin for Firefox that you can't uninstall.
They do the same thing!
-
@dhromed said:
@gu3st said:
Chrome already has far superior developer tools than Firefox.
I've found that you can't set a breakpoint right on the error in the console, and you can't jump to the code from the error in the console.
So that's a big debugging efficiency hit.
Yes you can jump straight to the error from the console, just click on the underlined link that appears next to the error in the console
and it takes you straight to the error
(click to open a larger version in a new tab)
I don't know about setting a break point straight from the console though, I've always set breakpoints from within the code files (by clicking on the line number)
-
TRWTF is the code on the screenshot using to be eval'd strings instead of function objects (lambdas) in ValidatorHookupEvent().
The inside of said function is even worse.
What a horrible way to phrase
var prev = control[eventType];
control[eventType] = prev ? function() { newstuff(); prev(); } : newstuff;Yes, I know, this differs in handling of return, for example. But proper design can fix it.
-
@DoctaJonez said:
just click on the underlined link that appears next to the error in the console
Ah cool, thanks.
-
@OperatorBastardusInfernalis said:
TRWTF is the code on the screenshot using to be eval'd strings instead of function objects (lambdas) in ValidatorHookupEvent().
Hey, maybe he didn't want IDEs to offer syntax highlighting, JSLint to be able to check the code for errors, minifiers to be able to compress the code, or browsers to be able to optimize the code. If all those things are the problem, eval is the solution.The inside of said function is even worse.
What a horrible way to phrase
var prev = control[eventType];
control[eventType] = prev ? function() { newstuff(); prev(); } : newstuff;Yes, I know, this differs in handling of return, for example. But proper design can fix it.
-
I think that new UI looks great. Much better than the shit they have now.
-
@joe.edwards said:
eval is the solution
We're doomed.
-
@OperatorBastardusInfernalis said:
TRWTF is the code on the screenshot using to be eval'd strings instead of function objects (lambdas) in ValidatorHookupEvent().
The inside of said function is even worse.
What a horrible way to phrase
var prev = control[eventType];
control[eventType] = prev ? function() { newstuff(); prev(); } : newstuff;Yes, I know, this differs in handling of return, for example. But proper design can fix it.
It was just the first error I had to hand for my screenshots.
It's auto generated crap, notice that it's from WebResource.axd. Funnily enough I've got to debug and somehow fix this error. It's not very fun fixing auto generated code that you have very little control over.
-
[quote user="joe.edwards
"]eval is the solution[/quote]You seem trustworthy.
-
@DoctaJonez said:
It's not very fun fixing auto generated code that you have very little control over.
Oh come on, it's auto-generating stuff that it then needs to eval(). How much more fun could one person have?
-
@El_Heffe said:
Everybody is making their UI "more modern", with apparently "modern" being a new euphamism for "shitty with fewer features".
Yeah! Every user interface should look like this:
Whenever someone complains about a reduction in features, they rarely consider whether those features were useful to anyone but them. Nor do they consider the amount of time they invested in learning those obscure features that only they use.
-
@Soviut said:
Whenever someone complains about a reduction in features, they rarely consider whether those features were useful to anyone but them. Nor do they consider the amount of time they invested in learning those obscure features that only they use.
Bullshit.
-
@Soviut said:
Whenever someone complains about a reduction in features, they rarely consider whether those features were useful to anyone but them. Nor do they consider the amount of time they invested in learning those obscure features that only they use.
I also encounter GUIs with buttons in them that exercise an API put in by some smartass over-generalizer (not a believer in Gloves!) that don't actually work in a useful way for any user — unless they happen to stand on their head on the exact moment of the rising third moon before the vernal equinox of a leap year. Yeah whatever, no user ever managed to successfully use the feature (we know, because it actually triggers a catastrophic crash a little whole later) so there's no reason to leave it turned on at all. The API wonk hates this attitude — “but a user might want to uninstall the core data binding layer!” — but the more sensible members of the team know to ignore this sort of thing.My colleagues will know exactly who I'm talking about. Nice guy, a bit of a code magician, but needs a short leash.
-
@dkf said:
I also encounter GUIs with buttons in them that exercise an API put in by some smartass over-generalizer (not a believer in Gloves!) that don't actually work in a useful way for any user — unless they happen to stand on their head on the exact moment of the rising third moon before the vernal equinox of a leap year. Yeah whatever, no user ever managed to successfully use the feature (we know, because it actually triggers a catastrophic crash a little whole later) so there's no reason to leave it turned on at all. The API wonk hates this attitude — “but a user might want to uninstall the core data binding layer!” — but the more sensible members of the team know to ignore this sort of thing.
Related, but sorta the opposite: Our main product has an ini-type configuration file. With (by and large) sensible defaults for when things aren't actually specified in there. Any time old code gets revisited, or new code is written, it's required that in so far that it's possible, it should run with sensible defaults if nothing is actually in that configuration file.My colleagues will know exactly who I'm talking about. Nice guy, a bit of a code magician, but needs a short leash.
We have one (more than one actually) project engineer who insists on knowing every parameter for parts of it just so he can fiddle. Then comes to our department wondering why his project's going to hell in a handcart because he's managed to cram each parameter he's been told about into the configuration file - usually with unsuitable values - then complains that the "software isn't working."
Which leads to generally one sided conversations along the lines of "Of course the Frobnitz stops working on your project - we reset it by default a minute after we've noticed it probably needs resetting. Your overriding it with [frobnitz]reset_time = 10h means that we won't reset it until 10 hours after we've noticed it probably needs resetting. Stop cramming every parameter you know about into your configuration." Or more recently "Bridging all 6 ethernet interfaces together, and having 5 different VLANS on that one bridge using exactly the same CIDR really won't work." Wash later rinse repeat with his next project. Or if we're very lucky, with another aspect of the current project.
I've personally taken to not actually telling him about every little knob and adjuster with my stuff. (And before anyone asks, all these options are generally documented, but no-one round here tends to bother actually reading it.)
-
@El_Heffe said:
Is the Addon Bar an obscure feature that took an enormous amount of time to learn?@Soviut said:
Whenever someone complains about a reduction in features, they rarely consider whether those features were useful to anyone but them. Nor do they consider the amount of time they invested in learning those obscure features that only they use.
Bullshit.Maybe*, but it's not something that's in the user's face. You only get to see it if you use it**. Are they taking away the Find toolbar too?
And it's not like it's hard to maintain. It's almost a side-effect of having to implement the browser's layout engine.
*No, it's not.
**I realize this was your point, that it could be okay to toss features used by 1%. But the Addon Bar is as useful as the addons themselves. By that reasoning you might want to throw away addons too, or the console (which is much more complex than a simple toolbar).
-
@Soviut said:
@El_Heffe said:
Everybody is making their UI "more modern", with apparently "modern" being a new euphamism for "shitty with fewer features".
Yeah! Every user interface should look like this:
Whenever someone complains about a reduction in features, they rarely consider whether those features were useful to anyone but them. Nor do they consider the amount of time they invested in learning those obscure features that only they use.
At present, Firefox looks like this:
After Australis, it will look like this:
-
@flabdablet said:
At present, Firefox looks like this:
After Australis, it will look like this:
no no it look like be a hammer
-
@ratchet freak said:
no no it look like be a hammer
Like the language related one?:
-
@ratchet freak said:
@flabdablet said:
no no it look like be a hammer
That is a hammer. You grip the silvery part and hit with the blue plastic.
-
@locallunatic said:
@ratchet freak said:
@flabdablet said:
no no it look like be a hammer
That is a hammer. You grip the silvery part and hit with the blue plastic.
QFT
Every tool in my toolbox has, at one time or another, been a hammer.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Every tool in my toolbox has, at one time or another, been a hammer.
Have you tried using the toolbox itself as a hammer? What it lacks in precision, it makes up for with brute momentum.
-
@dkf said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:Every tool in my toolbox has, at one time or another, been a hammer.
Have you tried using the toolbox itself as a hammer? What it lacks in precision, it makes up for with brute momentum.Most of the time you are substituting like that in you only need it for light tapping and are too lazy to go locate the real hammer (also you use it properly, hold the handle thumb next to the shank and use the base of the handle to do the hitting).
-
@locallunatic said:
That is a hammer. You grip the silvery part and hit with the blue plastic.
Naturally, and as the online help points out, you should do this only if you can find neither a bottle nor a shoe.
-
I was at an outdoor music festival once, and we used a random stone to hammer in our tent's anchors.
-
@dhromed said:
Fascinating.I was at an outdoor music festival once, and we used a random stone to hammer in our tent's anchors.
-
@dhromed said:
I was at an outdoor music festival once, and we used a random stone to hammer in our tent's anchors.
What kind of random stone generator did you use? I've heard that if you use a weak one then hackers can figure out what the stone looked like and use that information to pull your tent's anchors out.
-
@julmu said:
More importantly, did the resultant stones have holes in them?@dhromed said:
I was at an outdoor music festival once, and we used a random stone to hammer in our tent's anchors.
What kind of random stone generator did you use? I've heard that if you use a weak one then hackers can figure out what the stone looked like and use that information to pull your tent's anchors out.
-
get in line behind the long-time Opera [s]user[/s] users (lol, freudian slip) who were totally screwed over with 15
-
@FrankyBoy said:
get in line behind the long-time Opera [s]user[/s] users (lol, freudian slip) who were totally screwed over with 15
Bad news then: they're going to get screwed over again, together with all other desktop Chrome users.
Recently, Chrome's Adam Barth has stated on the Blink developer mailing list:
"I think we shouldn't accept new desktop-targeted features at this time. Instead, we should focus on solving the important problems that face the mobile web. Features like screen orientation lock do address problems faced by the mobile web, but the problems they address seem less important than offline, for example. Of course, we have many people contributing to Blink and not everyone can work on the most important problems, but if you're working on a desktop-targeted feature, it might be worth thinking about how you can contribute to making the web successful on mobile instead."From a developer point-of-view the downfall has already begun, with Google revealing its intentions to pull support for CSS regions, because they can't optimize them well enough for fast mobile browsing.
-
I think your pre-emptive fuck you was spot on. Nevermind the kindergarten interface, look what they are up to now:
[url]https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/[/url]
-
@garrywong said:
I think your pre-emptive fuck you was spot on. Nevermind the kindergarten interface, look what they are up to now:
Holy Mother of What The Fuck. More bullshit double-talk per square inch than anything I've seen for a while.Publisher Transformation with Users at the Center
*Feb. 13 update: I posted more details about Directory Tiles here.* We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make ...
-
@El_Heffe said:
@garrywong said:
I think your pre-emptive fuck you was spot on. Nevermind the kindergarten interface, look what they are up to now:
Holy Mother of What The Fuck. More bullshit double-talk per square inch than anything I've seen for a while.
*Feb. 13 update: I posted more details about Directory Tiles here.* We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make ...
So if you remove all the marketing-speak, the post is this:We are adding advertisements to our browser in the case where a user does not have 9 frequently visited sites, such as when they just downloaded the browser.
-
@Ben L. said:
So if you remove all the marketing-speak, the post is this:
We are adding advertisements to our browser in the case where a user does not have 9 frequently visited sites, such as when they just downloaded the browser.
... and to appease the open source "information wants to be free!" idiots who inexplicably still support our browser, some of the ads will be for other open source products.
