@boomzilla said:
Nothing like some good old fashioned printf style debugging!
You mean, there's another way?
@boomzilla said:
Nothing like some good old fashioned printf style debugging!
You mean, there's another way?
Then break the test down further to determine where the bug is. Can the function you're calling be triggered by some other means? Can you use that event handler to trigger the simplest bit of code? I don't think this is complicated stuff I should have to explain to a developer.
@blakeyrat said:
1) Alerts don't even show on mobile browsers, so that's fucking useless
Someone should probably tell Google then, because Android shows alerts just fine.
Hmm, I didn't think of that. Possibly a badly implemented filter by Virgin then?
I think someone may have some malware on their machine that's intercepting searches done from the address bar... And I don't think Virgin Media is the WTF here either...
@dhromed said:
Do tell! Perhaps group knowledge can alleviate your pain.Unlikely, but I'm bored so I'll bite!
Firstly, I don't know how it calculates font sizes, but what it calls a point is not the same as what any other application does. If you have an image with a DPI to match the screen (i.e. it's for screen and not print) then a font at 14pt size should be close to 14pt font in other software. It ends up being closer to 14px. A minor niggle, but one that just makes for a more trial and error guesswork when turning a design into CSS.
At random points the interface locks up and anything I do won't actually have a visual difference on the screen. I think this is isolated only to 64-bit Photoshop though, as I've not encountered it since using the 32-bit one.
Image dimensions are hidden in a menu option, would be really handy to have them in the toolbar or titlebar somewhere. I know that Photoshop is aimed primarily at print work, but they added web-based image features, so this would be nice to have too
The filesize of images is always huge. Saving out a .png creates an image that's much bigger than Gimp does from the same source, and same goes for .jpg too. I could understand it of the .jpg format, the format allows for different compression algorithms to be chosen and they probably erred for one that gave quality over compression, but the .png being so frickin huge doesn't make much sense.
Copying a layer that contains some sort of transparency into another program gives random results. Sometimes the transparency carries across, other times it it given a white background. This means I end up having to save that out to a temp image somewhere to use later more often than not.
@ender said:
Repeat after me: GIMP. Does. Not. Currently. Have. Anything. Similar. To. Adjustment. Layers. No, those blending options do not do what adjustment layers do. And while I don't work on the GIMP core, I'm still one of it's developers.This feature would make Gimp a Photoshop killer, but I understand that implementing this isn't easy. As it is, there are still ways to achieve the same result, but Photoshop just makes it a bit easier. That said, Photoshop makes so many other things unnecessarily difficult or awkward, that I would still use Gimp anyday unless forced.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:So you think two windows are better than one? I already told you several times I use one file manager for everything, and that one file manager allows split panes. Why the fuck would I want two windows open when I can do it in one? I don't want to clutter my taskbar with tons of windows, and then have to tab between each one because I can't identify them by their thumbnail. If I have all my files accessible via one window, then why the hell not?Suggest an alternative that would be as efficient. Go on, do it.An alternative to what? Your debating style? Just throw shit at a wall, that'd be more efficient.
Or you mean FTP client interfaces? Haven't we already covered that? (We have, but you're purposefully ignoring it in order to... what? Prove a point? Hope my memory sucks and I won't scroll up? I dunno.) The alternative is the FTP shows a single window of remote files, and local files are handled by the local file browser. This is, for example, how every single FTP client I've ever seen on MacOS works (which is why I highly doubt you have evidence that the majority of clients are double-paned). WinSCP also can be set this way, which is why I use it.
It's more efficient because the majority of the time, you want the local files open in your file browser anyway. Perhaps you're downloading a document you now need to open. Maybe you need to preview the image thumbnails before uploading. Or any of a million other reasons.
Your turn! Gimme something. Anything.
Oh, and I mentioned that I use split panes for file management not only for FTP and not only in FTP software, but you seem to have either a) not read that b) been too busy listening to your shoulder aliens to pay attention c) just being a douche d) all of those. Either way, no skin off my nose. I (and most of the others here as far as I can tell) like split panes for file management for specific cases, and it lets me work a lot faster and more efficiently. It's of no surprise to me that you don't wish to work efficiently or learn a better way of doing something, you're quite clearly a technological dinosaur who pretends to be cool and 'in the know'
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:Suggest an alternative that would be as efficient. Go on, do it.I have the evidence that the majority of FTP software does it like that.Really? From my experience it's maybe 50/50. Let's see your evidence.
@ASheridan2 said:
I make the logical assumption there's probably a good reason for it, a point that is presumably too difficult for you to fathom.Oh I get that you're making that assumption, it's just a bad assumption. I live in a universe where the majority of people do things because It's Always Been Done That Way. And if you re-example how it's done, and do it different (even if it's better), people whine and stomp their feet and throw little temper tantrums and declare they'll boycott the product. Like when Office introduced the Ribbon interface.
There are more McDonalds than steakhouses, so McDonalds must serve better food than steakhouses, right?
@ASheridan2 said:
Oh, and before you go on a rant about it not being the best way and that we should try to change stuff for the better, blah blah blah, read the posts here and take note of the amount of people who actually like split panes. Most people here seem to thing they are useful too.Yeah but people here are the exact kind of people I described in the last paragraph, people who whine and bitch over the smallest change, even if it's a change for the better. In fact, you're one of those people. So... that ain't gonna do much to convince me.
@Mole said:
@dhromed said:I agree, that does seem a little dangerous. At least put them in SVN/Git/other and then update the live server with that. You won't overwrite anything you didn't meant to, and you can roll back to the last good version really easily.OMG, you put files into production directly?!
Having the folders in view is more efficient and less error-prone when I'm putting some files into production, copared to one-dimensionally doubleclicking deeper into the structure and going back up again.
I manage all the files locally, and once that works, synchronise with the test server, and if that works, then hit the Deploy button and it synchronises with the production server. If it goes pear-shaped at either server, you just hit the "Rollback" button and hopefully it starts working again.
@blakeyrat said:
@ASheridan2 said:I have the evidence that the majority of FTP software does it like that. I make the logical assumption there's probably a good reason for it, a point that is presumably too difficult for you to fathom. Oh, and before you go on a rant about it not being the best way and that we should try to change stuff for the better, blah blah blah, read the posts here and take note of the amount of people who actually like split panes. Most people here seem to thing they are useful too.@blakeyrat said:Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?Ask the devs who make the FTP software. I don't write the FTP software, so I don't know all the reasons. My only reason is that it makes it easier to use, which is enough of a reason for me.So you think it's better, but you have no evidence-- in fact not even any theories-- as to what makes it better? That's not enough of a reason for me.
@blakeyrat said:
@MiffTheFox said:Sorry, I do keep saying that all that remote file access is available in my computers native file browser.It just happens to be that I use Windows at work and the native file browser there is piss poor and offers access to fuck all.Also, people still use FTP!? But it's unencrypted! Over the open Internet!People who aren't pedantic dickweeds seeing "FTP" in a discussion about user interfaces would have read it as, "FTP, SFTP, or similar technologies where remote files are accessed, but are not mapped to the computer's native file browser."
@blakeyrat said:
Are we allowed to know these reasons? Maybe you could enlighten us instead of being vague as shit?Ask the devs who make the FTP software. I don't write the FTP software, so I don't know all the reasons. My only reason is that it makes it easier to use, which is enough of a reason for me.