Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: piratePenguin on 15 November 2005, 21:21
-
13 good reasons to switch from IE to Firefox (http://www.killbillsbrowser.com/). Funny read.
Also, Explorer Destroyer (http://explorerdestroyer.com/), which I just found on that page, seems pretty cool.
-
Cute, but I don't think pimping Firefox like that is the way to go. I mean, there are other good browsers out there. Firefox is not the only alternative, and it shouldn't be. But really, anyone who writes illegitimate code for IE compatibility should be strangled, and anyone who promotes illegitimate code by using IE should be strangled too. I don't care what browser you use, as long as it is standards compliant.
-
he he
2. Your kids will only see porn when they want to.
Sorry, buddy... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
-
Meh, us Opera users are used to getting the shaft from Netscape, Mozilla, Pheonix/Firebird/Firefox/Deerpark/WTF?. No real biggie.
-
^ Same with the Safari users.
-
"Internet Explorer is an industry standard." one hell of a fucked industry. gove it 22 years and your walls will be made of flat screens and u can change the wallpaper whenevr with "XP Wall Edition", but you will need to make your walls IE compatable and have to suffer, well maybe not suffer some big pr0n ad on the wall.
-
I didn't switch to Firefox, I sticked with Opera, the best browser in the world.
-
Sorry I couldn't help this one.
6. Keep squinting and your eyes will get stuck like that, stupid
Unlike IE, Firefox makes it easy to make text bigger. Just hit Control and "+" at the same time. And Control "-" makes it smaller.
Unlike IE and FireFox, Opera actually has a propper zoom feature that not only makes the text bigger, all the other graphics are resized too, and yes the handy Control "+" and Control "-" keyboard shortcuts works too.
I wonder how easy it is to modify the Explorer Destroyer to push Opera instead of FireFox, is it open source? :D
-
Try doing this for me in Opera:
(http://illhostit.com/thumbnails/7634337034567597/I_dare_you.png) (http://illhostit.com/files/7634337034567597/I_dare_you.png)
XUL (http://www.xulplanet.com) rules.
If that's (I'm referring to XUL as a whole (which is what makes extensions possible (and natural), BTW), not just the browser-inside-browser craziness) not the most innovative thing in web-browsers in a long time, I dunno what is.
-
Why would I want to?
Not when Opera can do this:
(http://www.illhostit.com/thumbnails/6887768976649984/opera%20rules.PNG) (http://www.illhostit.com/files/6887768976649984/opera%20rules.PNG)
Face it piratePenguin, Opera's just better than FireFox. :p
-
Face it piratePenguin, Opera's just better than FireFox. :p
Because it has tiled windows and zoom zooms images?
Yea, right.
Opera might have a few extra features that might be useful once in a while (I'm sure not everybody uses them, and that very few people use them alot). The Mozilla guys have a design to die for. Maybe now they can probably work on them "useful once in a while" features.
I wonder are the Opera guys already redesigning with XUL. They'd want to be. Internet Explorer is gonna have XAML, which is the same as XUL (same idea anyhow). Opera sure wouldn't wanna be left behind, especially if XUL/XAML becomes as big as some people have said they'll be.
-
What's XUL/XAML?
Your screenshot doesn't impress me at all.
-
What's XUL/XAML?
Your screenshot doesn't impress me at all.
I linked to XULPlanet.com for a reason.
The XML User Interface Language (XUL) is a markup language for describing user interfaces. With XUL you can create rich, sophisticated cross-platform web applications easily.
Whenever I heard about it first, I thought "cool, useful for web-apps". Then I learned that Firefox itself sf an XUL app. I'm looking at the sources now - it's all Javascript, CSS, and XUL (XML) (only for the graphical stuff, and stuff releated to the interface. The rest is C and C++. You don't need to download the source code to see the Javascript, CSS, and XUL. Find browser.jar (for me it's in /usr/lib/firefox-1.6a1/chrome), extract it (it's a zip file - I used unzip), and look in browser.xul, etc.)!
The XUL-ness is what brang along the whole extension infrastructure. Extensions are XUL-built too, they register themselves with Firefox and the XML, etc. is merged into the Firefox XUL.
If I built some web-app in XUL, I could use buttons, menus, etc., kinda like GTK+, etc., and in Windows XP it'd look like an XP app, and on my system it'd look like Firefox does. A native app. But it'd be hosted remotely - you could visit http://piratepenguins_site.whatever/XUL/app.xul from any XUL browser (only Firefox ATM). If you run firefox with: 'firefox -chrome http://piratepenguins_site.whatever/XUL/app.xul' it'd run the app not inside a Firefox tab.
Jesus I should've just linked you to this (http://xulplanet.com/tutorials/whyxul.html).
-
Well hold on there, Jonesy. You've got a link to Firefox in your sig on that electronics forum. :p
-
The chrome:// protocol, in Firefox, provides access to the XUL-stuff installed on the system. Because Firefox itself is an XUL app, you can open Firefox within itself by visiting: chrome://browser/content/browser.xul (http://chrome://browser/content/browser.xul).
That's what my screenshot above was of.
You can also view the XUL components that make up Firefox, like the password manager, DOM viewer, source code editor, etc., with different chrome links.
-
Wow, I really like that feature, I used to use Opera and I loved it.
But now thinking back, I don't even know why I used it, the features that I thought were amazing compared to firefox just seem a short-lived fantasy.
I believe that Firefox is superior to Opera, even if Opera does have zooming etc.
-
Well hold on there, Jonesy. You've got a link to Firefox in your sig on that electronics forum. :p
Just modified it.
I don't know how well Opera will adapt to the, I suppose it will either have to or die out. I suppose I'll still use it I just might have to switch back to FireFox every now and again (I still do anyway, hell I even use IE on odd occasions).
-
Just modified it.
I don't know how well Opera will adapt to the, I suppose it will either have to or die out. I suppose I'll still use it I just might have to switch back to FireFox every now and again (I still do anyway, hell I even use IE on odd occasions).
Just don't dare expect me or anyone else to:
Face it X, Opera's just better than FireFox.
Childish comments like that piss me off big time.
IMO, Firefox is technically superior to Opera (with it's XUL, the chrome protocol, and extension support (XUL made that easy). That's technical for you. IMO Operas zoom zooms images, tiled windows etc., features like that are less important. They're importance is close to nil, at least IMO. I wouldn't go crazy over them. I wouldn't switch from Firefox to Opera for them.). It also has a much more ideal licence.
-
And Opera has problems with plug-ins, I gotta really force them to work ... Firefox rules :D
-
There is one thing that firefox DOES have over Opera. The best extension ever. (https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&category=Humor&numpg=10&id=974) Opera is sorely lacking in the hammertime department.
In my opinion, XUL is a waste of memory, and serves to slow it down with the unneeded ability to skin the browser.
-
Firefox has stumble upon and adblock. Let's see opera beat that? (Opera does have something like adblock, but firefox has an auto updater for the list) Also, web developer toolbar comes in very handy on Firefox.
-
At the moment I don't know (or care) about all the XUL shit, I don't know whether it's good or bad, only time will tell. I'll only care if the technology takes off and Opera doesn't support it, only then I'd agree that FireFox has a significant advantage over Opera. At the moment it doesn't, I don't need any extentions for Opera because it's so advanced it doesn't need any, currently the superiour interface and download manager carry far more weight than support for some new technology that isn't even mainstream and might not ever become important. For now I'll stand by my previous statement, Opera is better than FireFox.
-
At the moment I don't know (or care) about all the XUL shit, I don't know whether it's good or bad, only time will tell. I'll only care if the technology takes off and Opera doesn't support it, only then I'd agree that FireFox has a significant advantage over Opera. At the moment it doesn't, I don't need any extentions for Opera because it's so advanced it doesn't need any, currently the superiour interface and download manager carry far more weight than support for some new technology that isn't even mainstream and might not ever become important.
At least you know now that Firefox is a bit better technically than you previously thought. If I ever say "IMO Firefox is technically superior to Opera", anywhere where there's Opera fanboys about... Not pretty. And then XUL comes into play.
Opera is probably superior functionality-wise. But I can live without them functions Opera has and Firefox lacks, believe it or not ("They're importance is close to nil, at least IMO. I wouldn't go crazy over them. I wouldn't switch from Firefox to Opera for them.". GNU Emacs has all the functionality in the world (you might need extensions for some crazy stuff - like an IRC client and a web-browser), but you don't see everyone using it, do you? Some functionality is just not-important. skyman, what was your reason for disliking Emacs, again (it mightn't have been clear the last time. I remember you made a joke about Emacs (something like "it's supposed to be a text editor or something"?))?.
Also, Firefox is far superior extensibly. Some of the functionality provided by Firefox extensions you simply won't get on Opera.
For now I'll stand by my previous statement, Opera is better than FireFox.
Only IYO. Other people's opinions will differ, and you better not try to force your opinion on them.
Anybody who, in their right mind, says (and means) "Opera is better than Firefox" (like, plain-better), either has alot to educate me about or has alot to be educated about.
In my opinion, XUL is a waste of memory, and serves to slow it down with the unneeded ability to skin the browser.
Can't you skin Opera? Why do you say it's a waste of memory?
Oh yea - that's another thing. XUL applications can be easily skinned (I think that's by nature - or close to it - too (which would mean it shouldn't have been a huge amount of extra code to get-working, and it shouldn't require a much faster/better CPU or more/better memory).). But that's not the only advantage of XUL. So don't kid yourself skyman.
-
At the moment I don't know (or care) about all the XUL shit, I don't know whether it's good or bad, only time will tell. I'll only care if the technology takes off and Opera doesn't support it, only then I'd agree that FireFox has a significant advantage over Opera. At the moment it doesn't, I don't need any extentions for Opera because it's so advanced it doesn't need any, currently the superiour interface and download manager carry far more weight than support for some new technology that isn't even mainstream and might not ever become important.
Funny, I thought you previously posted this (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=105932&postcount=17):
I don't know how well Opera will adapt to the [XUL], I suppose it will either have to or die out.
The fact that you would think such a thing says it all. But yea - I realise you'll explain now that you weren't thinking straight, or whatever.
IMO, you wouldn't need to be as crazy to make that statement (what you said) as you would need to be to make this statement:
I don't know how well Mozilla will adapt to tiled windows and support for zooming images, I suppose it will either have to or die out.
Hell, if they really needed to (which they don't), I'm sure such functionality would be far easier to add than even minimal XUL support.
BTW, I added a bit to my previous post and made a few other changes. Anyone who has already read it - re-read (what I added isn't at the end) if you want.
-
I THINK that there is a text editor somewhere in EMACS, I've never been able to find it. Once my hand heals from being twisted around trying to find the shortcut for it, I'll let you know.
-
I THINK that there is a text editor somewhere in EMACS, I've never been able to find it. Once my hand heals from being twisted around trying to find the shortcut for it, I'll let you know.
And similarly someone could make the same joke about Opera ;)
-
piratePenguin,
Your argument all hindges on XUL support presuming it'll become a dominant technology and Opera won't support it. You bet if XUL takes off big Opera will implement it (they won't have any choice) but if it doesn't they obviously won't need to. I really don't see how XUL alone makes FireFox superiour to Opera, wOw!!! OmG!! MicR$oFT InTeRNeT ExPlOrER suPPORtS ACiVE x!!!! THi$ MaKe$ It beTTeR ThaN oPerA and FIreFoX PUt ToGethER!!!! :rolleyes:
By the way you can't make the same joke about Opera - I don't need to use the keyboard in Opera except to enter text of course.
-
piratePenguin,
Your argument all hindges on XUL support presuming it'll become a dominant technology and Opera won't support it.
Wow you got it all wrong.
What I'm saying (most of it anyhow) is that: IMO Firefox is technically superior to Opera, mainly because of XUL. XUL is a wonderful technology IMO. It's working wonders for Mozilla (most of the other Mozilla apps - Thunderbird etc., are also XUL apps).
XUL doesn't need to become a dominant technology, Firefox would still be just as technically-good or -bad as it was before it was dominant.
You bet if XUL takes off big Opera will implement it (they won't have any choice) but if it doesn't they obviously won't need to. I really don't see how XUL alone makes FireFox superiour to Opera, wOw!!! OmG!! MicR$oFT InTeRNeT ExPlOrER suPPORtS ACiVE x!!!! THi$ MaKe$ It beTTeR ThaN oPerA and FIreFoX PUt ToGethER!!!! :rolleyes:
Wow I really am dealing with kids.
By the way you can't make the same joke about Opera - I don't need to use the keyboard in Opera except to enter text of course.
Wow you really did get it all wrong.
Just. Wow.
-
What I'm saying (most of it anyhow) is that: IMO Firefox is technically superior to Opera, mainly because of XUL.
A ridiculous argument, that's like saying "Microsoft Windows is technically superiour to Linux because of DDE and OLE".
It's working wonders for Mozilla (most of the other Mozilla apps - Thunderbird etc., are also XUL apps).
OLE and DDE are working wonders for Microsoft Windows, it's great I can copy data to the clipboard from one application and paste it into another, I can even doulble click on the object and edit it again!
Currently, what positive effect is XUL having on Firefox?
Apart from being able to see your pretty web page I have yet to see any real advantages - I haven't noticed anything that provides a significantly superiour user experiance or benifits security. I use Thunderbird and it's quite good but I haven't seen anything really innovative (there's nothing that makes it stand out from the rest) for all I know ther could be something technically superiour out there, I just haven't found it. OLE and DDE have had a far bigger positive impact on Microsoft Windows applications than XUL has had on FireFox, they increase productivity by allowing me to use many applications to create one document - the more tools in my tool box the better.
-
A ridiculous argument, that's like saying "Microsoft Windows is technically superiour to Linux because of DDE and OLE".
You said yourself that the Opera guys would even possibly have to adopt XUL or "die".
OLE and DDE are working wonders for Microsoft Windows, it's great I can copy data to the clipboard from one application and paste it into another,
I can do that on here too.
Currently, what positive effect is XUL having on Firefox?
Extensability and themeability were much easier to get working (I'm sure). It will run and look like a native app on different systems. It can render XUL pages.
-
You said yourself that the Opera guys would even possibly have to adopt XUL or "die".
Yes, but more emphasis on the word possibly, Opera might have to support XUL in the end but this will depend on either Firefox becomming the dominant browser or Microsoft Internet Explorer supporting it.
I can do that on here too.
Good, it's about time the open source community catches up on this one. Mac OS and Windows have had OLE for years, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Apple invent it or was it Acorn?
I agree that XUL might be one of the advantages of Firefox but it doesn't nessacerly make it superiour overall and as it's so new (and unsupported) it isn't important to me.
-
Yes, but more emphasis on the word possibly
Actually, you never even mentioned the word "possibly" in the post I was referring to.
I don't know how well Opera will adapt to the, I suppose it will either have to or die out.
Good, it's about time the open source community catches up on this one.
I didn't happen today or yesterday. In fact, it probably goes back to the early days of GNU/Linux - GPM has copy and paste support. I dunno when Qt and GTK+ had their own clipboards, or if there were other libraries even before that with their own clipboards.
See, clipboard support isn't hard to do, and it'll never require a redisign. XUL is a technology. It's not quite-so-easy to implement. After properly implemented, you know that that app/renderer has a good design. Gecko (think that's what I should be calling this. Rather than Mozilla or Firefox) (Firefox's renderer) has an XUL implementation that seems to be properly implemented.
Gecko.tecnical_points += 10000000;
I agree that XUL might be one of the advantages of Firefox but it doesn't nessacerly make it superiour overall and as it's so new (and unsupported) it isn't important to me.
I said that IMO Firefox is technically superior to Opera. I never claimed that Firefox is better than Opera, because they both win in different fields.
-
In my opinion, Firefox is extremely over-engineered. The solution of XUL is way too complex for the needs of a lightweight browser like firefox.
They are trying to do too many things with it, it's the original mozilla project all over again.
Firefox has plateaued, any new changes to it are seen as "heresy" and users tend to be hostilic to them.
-
Isn't it better that they get more things done anyway, to stay ahead of the competition?
It's better than commerical apps like Opera, which don't get updated as often. :rolleyes:
-
In my opinion, Firefox is extremely over-engineered. The solution of XUL is way too complex for the needs of a lightweight browser like firefox.
I guess that's partly-true. But the XUL stuff is written and it's in Gecko (AFAIK), and it works. It might be a little bit slower with it, or take up more ram, but IMO it's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Firefox doesn't run slow for me, I've never had a problem with it.
They are trying to do too many things with it, it's the original mozilla project all over again.
Like what? Most/All of the XUL stuff is written already. They're still getting new visible-features in often.
Firefox has plateaued, any new changes to it are seen as "heresy" and users tend to be hostilic to them.
What makes you think that?
-
I guess that's partly-true. But the XUL stuff is written and it's in Gecko (AFAIK), and it works. It might be a little bit slower with it, or take up more ram, but IMO it's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Firefox doesn't run slow for me, I've never had a problem with it.
Sorry, you haven't convinced me of any real advantages that'll enhance the user's experiance, the unimportant features XUL provides doesn't out weigh the disadvantages caused by using more resources. I would rather have these resources used to provide the really handy features of Opera therefore making it easier to use and superiorly functional to Firefox.
Extensability and themeability were much easier to get working (I'm sure).
I don't care, I don't need extentions in Opera and the default theme is very nice - I've had no reason to change it even though I could.
It will run and look like a native app on different systems.
So would any program if X had a standard widgit set.
It can render XUL pages.
Only important if XUL takes off as a web standard.
I didn't happen today or yesterday. In fact, it probably goes back to the early days of GNU/Linux - GPM has copy and paste support. I dunno when Qt and GTK+ had their own clipboards, or if there were other libraries even before that with their own clipboards.
What's that? Different clipboards for different desktops/applications?
I was referring to a universal clipboard for the whole operating system - something Mac OS and Windows have had for many years.
See, clipboard support isn't hard to do, and it'll never require a redisign. XUL is a technology. It's not quite-so-easy to implement. After properly implemented, you know that that app/renderer has a good design. Gecko (think that's what I should be calling this. Rather than Mozilla or Firefox) (Firefox's renderer) has an XUL implementation that seems to be properly implemented.
It it's that easy then why hasn't it been done?
Why can't I draw something in Inkscape then paste it into an AbiWord document?
This would be easy on a Micorsoft Windows, at work I can easily paste things from Adobe Illustrator to Microsoft Word, why can't I do this on Linux?
Gecko.tecnical_points += 10000000;
I agree, the rendering is better in FireFox though it's not that much better.
I said that IMO Firefox is technically superior to Opera. I never claimed that Firefox is better than Opera, because they both win in different fields.
Correct, though it I suppose depends on what you mean by technically superior.
There are many things technically superiour about Opera;the user interface; the downlad manager; the session management, to name but a few, the main thing that amazes me though is how it has all of these features but its smaller and faster than Firefox. Yes I know Firefox has better rendering, XUL (which isn't of any importance) and extensions (which I don't need with Opera) but Opera is just so much more feature packed, as far as I'm concerned there's I have no choice Opera for me.
-
There are many things technically superiour about Opera;the user interface; the downlad manager; the session management, to name but a few, the main thing that amazes me though is how it has all of these features but its smaller and faster than Firefox. Yes I know Firefox has better rendering, XUL (which isn't of any importance) and extensions (which I don't need with Opera) but Opera is just so much more feature packed, as far as I'm concerned there's I have no choice Opera for me.
Do you think in a race to adopt eachothers features Opera would've implemented XUL, and designed the whole web-browser as an XUL app as fast as Firefox can implement all_them_sometimes_useful_features?
Firefox's XUL design, and it's support for XUL, is what makes it technically superior IMO. Not functionally superior. Technically.
It's design.
I don't care, I don't need extentions in Opera and the default theme is very nice - I've had no reason to change it even though I could.
I don't give a fuck if you don't care, or if anyone cares of Firefox's XUL design. It's design will still be there and gecko/whatever will still have all them extra technincal_points.
-
Do you think in a race to adopt eachothers features Opera would've implemented XUL, and designed the whole web-browser as an XUL app as fast as Firefox can implement all_them_sometimes_useful_features?
Large parts of Firefox would have to be re-written to implement Opera's features, for example to implement zooming and theming of the widgits on pages the rendering engine would need a complete re-write.
Firefox's XUL design, and it's support for XUL, is what makes it technically superior IMO. Not functionally superior. Technically.
It's design.
XUL design isn't superiour at all, it's the waste of space that explains why FireFox is a larger download, uses more memory and has less useful features over all.
I don't give a fuck if you don't care, or if anyone cares of Firefox's XUL design.
Good and neither do I, so there's no point in discussing this issue any further.
-
Large parts of Firefox would have to be re-written to implement Opera's features, for example to implement zooming and theming of the widgits on pages the rendering engine would need a complete re-write.
I still stand by what I said.
XUL design isn't superiour at all, it's the waste of space that explains why FireFox is a larger download, uses more memory and has less useful features over all.
How do you know?
Good and neither do I, so there's no point in discussing this issue any further.
My point was that it doesn't matter if anyone cares, it doesn't change Firefox's superior design.
-
Firefox is superiour.
Oh, no it isn't Opera is superiour.
Firefox is superiour.
Oh, no it isn't Opera is superiour.
Firefox is superiour.
Oh, no it isn't Opera is superiour.
Firefox is superiour.
Oh, no it isn't Opera is superiour.
Round and round we go, we're not acheiving anything here, this debate has ceased being productive. Look how we're both hanging on trying to get the satisfaction of having the last word - very funny don't you think? :D :D :D
-
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5567/headbash5mh.gif)
-
Firefox is superiour.
I never suggested that.
Damnit I've been very careful with my words, only for you to fucking bend and twist them to suit yourself.
Round and round we go, we're not acheiving anything here, this debate has ceased being productive. Look how we're both hanging on trying to get the satisfaction of having the last word - very funny don't you think? :D :D :D
Fine I'll stick to what I said in this post (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=105978&postcount=23).
BTW skyman, you never answered any of my questions about your thoughts on XUL (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=106060&postcount=35).
How you (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9649&page=3&pp=25).
-
Opera sucks.
It cant even use a lot of STANDARD javascripts, it is below IE as far as I am concerened because it is so incompatible. Opera need to follow standards and stop taking shortcuts for quicker load times. Mozilla Firefox is perfect for me.
-
XUL design isn't superiour at all, it's the waste of space that explains why FireFox is a larger download, uses more memory and has less useful features over all.
How do you know?
Let me put this very simply.
Opera has lots of useful features and is small.
Firefox is bigger and has less features.
Alright then maybe XUL isn't to blame, perhaps sloppy inferiour coding is a more likely culprit I'll just stick by my oppinion too, Opera is smaller, uses less resources and has more features than Firefox, hence it is technically superiour.
Hmm, I wonder what Microsoft you say if you tried to them that Linux is superiour to Windows because it uses less memory and has more features. I bet they'd say something like "Windows NT has a microkernel design which is technically superiour to Linux's monolithic system, therefore Windows is technically superiour to Linux even though it uses more resources and has less features".
-
Can't we just say use any browser except IE, as long as it works well for you ?
-
I agree.
I do take back some of the things I said before, I don't have a problem with Firefox, it has its advantage over Opera (like standards compliance for example). I deem Opera as superiour because it has more features, is lighter and is less of a strain on the system resources, other people disagree and believe standards compliance are more important - each to their own I say.
-
Windows NT has a microkernel design which is technically superiour to Linux's monolithic system, therefore Windows is technically superiour to Linux even though it uses more resources and has less features
And then I'd pop in and say "NT is a single-server microkernel, and Linux has basically all the (technical and non-technical) benefits of that already. Single-server microkernels are basically equal to well-designed monolithic kernels (like Linux). If NT was a multi-server microkenel like the Hurd or Minix, and it worked well, it could have functionality that Linux couldn't dream off without a complete redesign and a few sloppy hacks. NT would be technically superior to Linux, there would be no question.".
I deem Opera as superiour because it has more features, is lighter and is less of a strain on the system resources
I deem Firefox as technically superior for it's XUL design, which brings many advantages, both technical and non-technical. I never suggested it was functionally or efficiently superior.
-
If Linux came from Minix, why isn't it a multi-server microkenel ?
-
OSX has a Mach microkernal, too. The point is that sure, Linux uses a monolithic kernel, and so does BSD. Those are both perfectly fine operating systems however, and are both better than NT, in my opinion. In the end, the kernel is just one part of something, and even if you have an awesome kernel, if your filesystem, user interface, etc. is shit, then your operating system is shit.
-
I found the answer to my own question on Wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel)
In the early 1990s, monolithic kernels were considered obsolete. The design of Linux as a monolithic kernel rather than a microkernel was the topic of a famous flame war (or what then passed for flaming) between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum.
There is merit in both sides of the arguments presented in the Tanenbaum/Torvalds debate.
Monolithic kernels tend to be easier to design correctly, and therefore may grow more quickly than a microkernel-based system. There are success stories in both camps. Microkernels are often used in embedded robotic or medical computers because most of the OS components reside in their own private, protected memory space. This is impossible with monolithic kernels, even with modern module-loading ones. However, the monolithic model tends to be more efficient through the use of shared kernel memory, rather than the slower Inter-process communication characteristic of microkernel designs.
Although Mach is the best-known general-purpose microkernel, several other microkernels have been developed with more specific aims. L3 was created to demonstrate that microkernels are not necessarily slow. L4 is a successor to L3 and a popular implementation called Fiasco is able to run Linux next to other L4 processes in separate address spaces. There are screenshots available on freshmeat.net showing this feat. A newer version called Pistachio also has this capability.
QNX is an operating system that has been around since the early 1980s and has a very minimalistic microkernel design. This system has been far more successful than Mach in achieving the goals of the microkernel paradigm. It is used in situations where software is not allowed to fail. This includes the robotic arms on the space shuttle, and machines that grind glass to very fine tolerances (a tiny mistake may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as in the case of the mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope).
-
If Linux came from Minix, why isn't it a multi-server microkenel ?
Linux didn't come from Minix (well the name did, that's it). Minix sucked ass. The guy(s) who developed it developed it for educational purposes, so students could easily understand how everything worked. They also charged for it, which some people didn't like.
The GNU Hurd also sucked (to quote ESR, "it was already clear
that HURD had become an exercise in intellectual masturbation"). So people had a wonderful mostly-GNU userland and a shit kernel. Linus Torvalds, in Finland, got himself a 386 CPU (or something) and in an effort to learn more about how it worked and all, he started work on a kernel for it. He called it Linux after Minix, and it took off. It's a monolithic kernel because it's simpler that way, it's not hard to get the advantages of single-server microkernel with it (e.g. with modules), and because microkernels were really complicated to debug (not really true anymore. Alot has changed since 1991.), etc. Linus Torvalds kinda violently hates the microkernel philosophy, especially the Hurd.
-
And then I'd pop in and say "NT is a single-server microkernel, and Linux has basically all the (technical and non-technical) benefits of that already. Single-server microkernels are basically equal to well-designed monolithic kernels (like Linux). If NT was a multi-server microkenel like the Hurd or Minix, and it worked well, it could have functionality that Linux couldn't dream off without a complete redesign and a few sloppy hacks. NT would be technically superior to Linux, there would be no question.".
Right so Hurd and Minux are technically superiour to Linux, if this is true then why doesn't anyone use them?
-
Because they suck ... the well written Linux/GNU kernel is better than the badly written Hurd and Minux kernels ... and NT, of course ... it's actually a "hybrid" kernel.
-
Right so Hurd and Minux are technically superiour to Linux, if this is true then why doesn't anyone use them?
I never said they were technically superior. Minix definetly isn't and probably never will be, unless someone else does the job for them. Minix is for educational purposes only.
The Hurd on gnumach works but it sucks (gnumach isn't a great microkernel anymore.). It crashes under the smallest of loads. It's not secure. It's drivers come from Linux 2.2 (i.e. not alot of supported hardware, no recent hardware.).
They're in the process of porting the Hurd to a different microkernel, L4Ka::Pistachio. Nothing much works yet though, you can boot it up and a wonderful 'banner' program automatically runs and prints some text to the screen. There's no filesystem or anything though. It's unusable.
You would want to be insane to suggest either of Minix or the Hurd on either gnumach or L4 to be technically superior to Linux. Minix is barely usable, the Hurd isn't even.
However, I imagine if the Hurd is ever complete (or even ready), on L4 or some other microkernel (there's actually talk about switching microkernels, again), there won't be a question about which is technically superior between it and Linux.
The Hurd will do things Linux can't dream of (at least not without a redesign). For example, persistance (probably, depends on if the developers actually do this, but apparantly doing this will make other things easier, and it seems like right now they're up for it.), which means that any time there's a power cut or something, or you shut down the system, you can continue from right where you left off, basically immediatly (after BIOS, bootloader, and that). That and a few other things (translators (which already work), for example) would make it technically superior to Linux. And them things are only so easy because of it's wonderful multi-server microkernel design.
-
Exactly even though Minux and Hurd have a better design model it doesn't make them technically superiour to Linux. The same goes for Firefox, even though XUL may be a better design model it doesn't make Firefox technically superior to Opera.
-
Exactly even though Minux and Hurd have a better design model it doesn't make them technically superiour to Linux. The same goes for Firefox, even though XUL may be a better design model it doesn't make Firefox technically superior to Opera.
The Hurd and Minix designs are by no means complete. The Hurd's goals have yet to be met.
Mozilla's XUL stuff is only being refined now. It's mostly-complete. If I could say the same thing about the Hurd, I'd probably be saying that it's technically superior to Linux aswell.
It depends on how much you appreciate the design I guess. I've read alot about XUL, and I like it. The only bad stuff I've ever heard about it is from you and skyman, and I dunno where you get it from.
-
Konqueror pwns all browsers :D
-
http://www.mozilla.org/why/framework.html
http://www.mozilla.org/why/framework-details.html
<3 Mozilla
-
Konqueror pwns all browsers :D
Konqueror's probably one of the fastest browsers around but that's because it's integrated into the desktop like IE.
-
More like the desktop was integrated into Konqueror. Which isn't much better, really.
-
Go make your own Opera-based desktop enviornment, then. :p
(I'm actually seriously thinking about a mozilla-based DE (NOTE: I'm not thinking about MAKING it atall at this time.). That framework stuff, is fucking excellent)
-
Sorry I couldn't help this one.
Unlike IE and FireFox, Opera actually has a propper zoom feature that not only makes the text bigger, all the other graphics are resized too, and yes the handy Control "+" and Control "-" keyboard shortcuts works too.
Just found the bugzilla entry for this on the Mozilla wishlist FAQ (http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html). Here it is (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4821).
full page zoom requires cairo to be switched on, so it won't be out (if at all)
before Firefox 3.0.
Shizer.
In 2001 they almost had it in (there's a patch for it). If someone was motivated they could write the code but only enable it when FF is compiled with cairo support (FF didn't use cairo in 2001, BTW).
EDIT: download manager bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18004
-
Godd, I'm glad to see Firefox is catching up.
How about the download manager?
Does it still loose your download when the connection goes down for a couple of seconds or you have a power failure?
-
How about the download manager?
Does it still loose your download when the connection goes down for a couple of seconds or you have a power failure?
Not sure about that, don't think it's changed. Unless it allows you to resume the download...
I'm using Firefox HEAD ATM. Firefox 2 is scheduled for the last quarter of this year. An alpha 1 release isn't too far away. I just thought I'd see what's been done sofar - so I packaged 1.5 up so I could reinstall it later, moved my ~/.mozilla to ~/.mozilla-1.5 and checked out and compiled FF from CVS HEAD (I had to disable SVG support because of a compilation error).
I'm suprised at how stable it is. Hasn't crashed once. Performance seems about the same. Only problem is on vBulletin if I'm using the enhanced interface for posting posts I can't use the keyboard to navigate through the text (I prefer the basic editor anyhow, just to lazy to switch to it on forums I don't use much). Bugs like that are to be expected at this stage, though.
Tabs are like in Safari with a close button on each tab. If you've too many tabs open the close button only shows up for the current tab. Two times sofar I've accidently closed the rightmost tab instead of the current one. screenshot (http://illhostit.com/files/2695351259118631/FF-tabs.png)
Also, when you close a tab, instead of bringing you to the tab just to left of the old one, it brings you to the tab you were viewing before you switched to it (UPDATE: Nope, it's buggy. Doesn't work like it should all the time..). Now, if it would place new tabs just to the right of the current one...
Smooth scrolling is working. Not sure if it was in 1.5. There's a pretty cool cookie manager (http://illhostit.com/files/4336124476226493/FF-cookieman.png) and (security) certificate manager that I never noticed before (I should've taken a good look at all the stuff in 1.5 before overwriting it).
Places (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Places) has some stuff going on with the Bookmarks and the new History menus. You can search them from the same "Places" window.
I had planned on going back to 1.5 because I didn't expect this to be near as stable as it is. I'm gonna stick with this unless it starts fucking up badly.
-
The tabs work in exactly the same way in Opera and always have done as far as I can remember I don't know it could be Opera's innovation.
I'm not keen on the default font it uses in the editor on your screenshot, I've found the same on Linux too, is it a Linux thing? Can you change it?
-
It's a Linux thing. Firefox on my box has a different font. Probably all you'd need to do is change the defualt font of GNOME (or KDE).
-
The tabs work in exactly the same way in Opera and always have done as far as I can remember I don't know it could be Opera's innovation.
I'm not too fond of the way they work now TBH, but I don't mind using it. I just don't see what was wrong with one close button for the current tab... I can see 6 close buttons for tabs right now, why do I need 6 close buttons?! (if I wanna close, say, 4 of them, it'd be faster than right clicking and clicking "close tab", but I don't think that's worth the effort by the dev's... Plus, I would've thought one button would be more usable. And in e.g. the GIMP, do they have a delete button for every layer? No, you select the layer, then you click the delete button.... /me will have to search for a bugzilla entry on this tab decision..)
I'm not keen on the default font it uses in the editor on your screenshot, I've found the same on Linux too, is it a Linux thing? Can you change it?
http://illhostit.com/files/4948811754126222/textarea-font.png
It uses a monospaced font there, so it must be the website chosing the font...
-
I don't know, all I know is the text is far easier to when Firefox is run under Windows than Linux.
-
I don't know, all I know is the text is far easier to when Firefox is run under Windows than Linux.
Must be to do with the available fonts.
Cool thing about Firefox is that it's basically a very fucking big website - written in XUL and using Javascript. Gecko renders it all. That's such a brilliant idea IMO. Kinda like when programs were just holes in cards, and then someone had the idea to store them in memory instead - because they're data.
I fixed my first Mozilla bug last night!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=262800 (I would be Declan Naughton there)
In FF 1.5 if you go to Help > About, and then wait about 5 seconds before clicking the credits button, you would see the credits had already started crawling but are quickly reset again. On the CVS version I'm using, they aren't even reset, so you'd miss the beginning of them (probably due to changes in the gecko end of things).
So anyhow, it looked like an easy thing to fix. Whenever you go to Help > About, you're looking at chrome://browser/content/aboutDialog.xul (load it up in FF if you like). There's Javascript hooked into that page, chrome://browser/content/aboutDialog.js. It sets chrome://browser/content/credits.xhtml (the credits page) to be loaded in an iframe when the credits button is clicked. However, chrome://browser/content/credits.xhtml will always be running from the beginning because it's in the XUL. This (very simple) patch (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=214871) fixes that.
/me does a breakdance
-
i think firefox is shite, and IE does its job, best built in pop up blocker ive seen so far
-
How about Opera?
Which version of IE are you talking about, the latest beta 7 or 6.whatever it is ATM?
-
i think firefox is shite, and IE does its job, best built in pop up blocker ive seen so far
Try this one ;):
http://www.popuptest.com/
-
2 popups with the latest version of Firefox.
-
The first thing a browser should do is display webpages. Until Opera 8.x I had struggled to make my webpages Opera friendly and finally I gave up. Opera 8.x seems to have an improved rendering engine, that takes into account many common quirks, but not as many as Firefox. We still live in an IE dominated world, so displaying webpages as similar as possible with IE is a must for any browser IMO.
I think Opera should rethink its priorities - instead of bragging with some incomplete SVG support that no one even uses they should focus on bringing their rendering engine on par with Gecko - after all a browser is all about displaying webpages.
On the XUL front ... it's nice from a technological point of view, but I think that native GUIs are much better - because of performance and seamless integration into the host OS. For example, Firefox menus look quite ugly on Win 2k and Win XP with classic theme. You have to install an extension (https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=1208&application=firefox) to make them look in place.
Still, Firefox's user interface is much more polished than Opera's, which might seem overwhelming for the average user. Another thing I dislike about Opera is the way the tabs look - they are more like buttons than tabs, and I'm also pissed by the fact that I can't figure how to put the tabs toolbar below the address bar like in Firefox.
Bottom line:
Firefox:
+ BETTER RENDERING AND JS SUPPORT (but Opera 9 shows promise)
+ more intuitive interface
+ all the features that an Opera user wouldn't even dare to think about via extensions
Opera
+ Faster and more lightweight
+ A few interesting, but seldom used features (zoom, style)
+ Better download manager
+ Built-in mail client
I think it's up to every user to make a choice depending on his/her needs.
-
I like Opera, because it provides real tabbed browsing, something that Firefox and Internet Explorer can't do.
I like saving sessions on Opera, making the horizontal scrollbar disappear, being able to use keyboard or mouse only to browse, customizing the UI better than Firefox or Internet Explorer can, etc.
It's safe to say I'll never use another browser than Opera.
-
Never mind the fact that the Opera email client is utter shite.
-
Never mind the fact that the Opera email client is utter shite.
Yes, as well as the IRC client. But its the browser I use, not the e-mail and IRC client.
-
I know Thunderbird is better but I use Opera's email client because it's more convenient.
-
Yes, as well as the IRC client. But its the browser I use, not the e-mail and IRC client.
Can you remove/not install the IRC client and mail client if you don't want them?
-
No, but I wouldn't complain since the whole program is just a 3.6MB download.
-
Firefox is bigger and has less features.
I might be able to change the "bigger" bit, a bit ;)
Remember I explained Firefox is like a webpage? It's all markup - XUL, JS, CSS, XHTML and some other things. Go to chrome://browser/content/browser.xul and you'll see the browser render the browser.
I'm estimating that there's quite the large fraction of a compressed megabyte that can be saved by removing unnecessary whitespace (there is alot of it) and comments (particularly the 35-line license blocks that are at the beginning of every second/third source file) from all this markup.
Also, the DOM inspector extension (I don't understand why it's shipped with Firefox atall) comes with 16 locales that I, for one, will never use (Irish? Who the fuck speaks Irish!?), and I only got the one en-US locale for the core browser stuff - so that's a bit stupid.
BTW, does Opera 8 come with help files like FF, or are they stored online?
Firefox comes with some useless (to the average user) tests in resource:///res/samples
Maybe when FF2 comes out I'll be putting out builds of FF smaller than Opera? :)
-
(really this belongs here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9170) but I think we've seen enough bumping for the day)
If you only look at the incidents that you choose, you won't get very interesting view. As an example to counter your silly little view, I present you a bug that's been reported over two years ago, is marked critical, crashes the browser, and testcase is available:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202765
See the bug live in here, tested against latest firefox:
http://muzzy.net/ffcrash/crash.xml
So, where are the "hundreds" of programmers now? Oh, it's not an issue because it hasn't been publicized in any magazine?
Just to let ye know - FF 1.5.0.3, GNU/Linux, - no crash, but loading doesn't complete. Probably another bug, but at least it doesn't SEEM serious.
-
BTW, does Opera 8 come with help files like FF, or are they stored online?
They are all stored online.
-
I'm fine using opera, but it seriously sucks with loading things such as YTMNDs. Its got a good download manager though(open up an installer, then delete it after its complete without opening up a single new window)...
IE sucks with Web Standards, but still use it to check a created web page loading properly.
Firefox lacks the simplistic interface that I can shorten Opera to, but its the only one that can load a dang page right!
-
They are all stored online.
FF brings them along in the download (along with a very nice help viewer), which is good and bad. But it PARTLY explains why Opera is so much smaller to download than FF.
After I make a build of FF without the unnecessary whitespace and comments in the markup, without the help viewer and the help files (only if there's an easy way to exclude them), and without the DOM inspector (the only extension that comes with FF - and it's fucking huge for a few reasons (loadsa functionality, and it ships with 16 too many locales) - I don't get why this extension is shipped with FF. It's a saviour for web-devs but useless to most users) - I imagine it'd be very close to Opera in download size. Or at least, a good improvement. Most people don't use/need all that stuff.
RE: download manager. I installed the flashgot extension and it allows you to use a dedicated download manager (e.g. Kget) for downloading.
-
Love the link. Firefox is one hell of a webbrowser, and is MUCH better than Safari. Safari has trouble rendering web pages. Firefox does a great job of blocking pop-up ads.
Still, wasn't there a time when it would block banner ads?
Oh, and I would say that firefox is better than Opera, there is much better support for Firefox, most likely because Firefox is open-source. That is one of the reasons why I prefer open source to closed-source.