Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Programming & Networking => Topic started by: noob on 7 May 2006, 17:55
-
I made this code for my Black Metal's band's website. May be of use to every webmaster in the world.
-
I dislike the use of JavaScript, because you can disable it in the browser.
If you have PHP on your server, try this:
$bladeraar = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
if(eregi("msie",$bladeraar) && !eregi("opera",$bladeraar))
{
echo("<meta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"10;url=http://www.browsehappy.com/\" />");
}
elseif(eregi("mspie",$bladeraar) || eregi("pocket",$bladeraar))
{
echo("<meta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"10;url=http://www.browsehappy.com/\" />");
}
else
{
echo("<meta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"0;url=index2.php\" />");
}
-
I disagree, Firefox isn't the only alternative to IE and there're many people who use Opera who'll get this message as it identifies itself as IE6 by default. I don't like this kind of agressive Firefox marketing and it's one of my biggest dislikes about the Firefox community.
-
I disagree, Firefox isn't the only alternative to IE and there're many people who use Opera who'll get this message as it identifies itself as IE6 by default. I don't like this kind of agressive Firefox marketing and it's one of my biggest dislikes about the Firefox community.
At least my script makes a redirect to Browse Happy (http://www.browsehappy.com/), which links to Firefox and Opera.
-
I disagree, Firefox isn't the only alternative to IE and there're many people who use Opera who'll get this message as it identifies itself as IE6 by default. I don't like this kind of agressive Firefox marketing and it's one of my biggest dislikes about the Firefox community.
Too many options can kill a man.
If Opera identifies itself as IE6 by default, that's very fucking stupid. The Opera developers should've expected their users to fall into these IE traps, afterall, THEY'VE GOT MICROSOFT IN THE AGENT STRING!
Some developers will check that Opera isn't included in the agent string aswell, but not all of them will for different reasons ("not my fault, I think I'm doing this the right way. Fix your fucking agent string.", "there's THREE web browsers?").
-
At least my script checks for Opera users :)
-
Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/) is a pretty decent browser ... maybe they should include it in the Browse Happy site.
-
Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/) is a pretty decent browser ... maybe they should include it in the Browse Happy site.
Maybe. And they should remove Mozilla, and at least replace it with Seamonkey.
Konqueror is another very-decent web browser, but it doesn't run on 90% of computers (Windows computers without something like coLinux).
Safari doesn't run on that many computers either (but more)...
-
I disagree, Firefox isn't the only alternative to IE and there're many people who use Opera who'll get this message as it identifies itself as IE6 by default. I don't like this kind of agressive Firefox marketing and it's one of my biggest dislikes about the Firefox community.
It would be bad if they (intentionally) told Opera users they should use Firefox, maybe.
But only in some cases. Opera doesn't have a hope of rendering this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/launcher/launcher.xhtml) or this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/index.xhtml) (shitty javascript support. Absolutely shitty. Even in the 9.0 beta.), so guess what I'll be doing?
-
I agree with you about the Opera developers being stupid for choosing Opera to identify itself as IE6 by default, it's just idiotic there's nothing more I can say about that.
-
It would be bad if they (intentionally) told Opera users they should use Firefox, maybe.
But only in some cases. Opera doesn't have a hope of rendering this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/launcher/launcher.xhtml) or this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/index.xhtml) (shitty javascript support. Absolutely shitty. Even in the 9.0 beta.), so guess what I'll be doing?
Yup Opera can't handle them ... Amaya seems to only handle the first one properly, the second only partially ... the "canvas" is just a green square with no text.
-
But only in some cases. Opera doesn't have a hope of rendering this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/launcher/launcher.xhtml) or this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/index.xhtml) (shitty javascript support. Absolutely shitty. Even in the 9.0 beta.), so guess what I'll be doing?
Who cares?
Most browsers don't and Internet Explorer doesn't either, so no one would be stupid enough to design a website like that.
-
Who cares?
Most browsers don't and Internet Explorer doesn't either, so no one would be stupid enough to design a website like that.
Uh, standard SVG and Javascript, the webpages aren't the problem.
My actual personal website (not online) is valid XHTML + CSS, those 2 pages are little things I made just messing about with JS. But I will not hesitate to throw in some SVG or that onto my website.
Those 2 pages will be on the site but obviously Opera and IE users won't be fit to use them.
-
I randomly made the script after wanting user agent info and to get screen res to redirect to the right page. I just saw those 2 bits of code and made that.
-
Uh, standard SVG and Javascript, the webpages aren't the problem.
My actual personal website (not online) is valid XHTML + CSS, those 2 pages are little things I made just messing about with JS. But I will not hesitate to throw in some SVG or that onto my website.
Those 2 pages will be on the site but obviously Opera and IE users won't be fit to use them.
So the majority of people won't be able view them, yes some standards, :rolleyes: in my book standard isn't a proper standard until it's adopted by that majority so until then they aren't standards.
Talking of standards, Firefox, isn't W3C standards compliant, well it doesn't pass the Acid2 (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2//) test.
-
So the majority of people won't be able view them, yes some standards, :rolleyes: in my book standard isn't a proper standard until it's adopted by that majority so until then they aren't standards.
Well, they are without doubt W3C recommendations. I have to write my pages against something, it would be alot of work to write them against all the different browsers. So I write them against the recommendations (and yes, I've often looked for certain features in the specs. When I didn't find them, I look for another way to do it according to the specs, or ask around (http://www.developersdex.com/asp/message.asp?p=2978&r=4923497&page=2) (I be Declan Naughton there)).
A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of guidelines that, after extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement of W3C Members and the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of its Recommendations. Note: W3C Recommendations are similar to the standards published by other organizations.
Talking of standards, Firefox, isn't W3C standards compliant, well it doesn't pass the Acid2 (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2//) test.
"Firefox, isn't W3C standards compliant" What a statement.
Acid doesn't test JS. Acid doesn't test XSLT. Everything I've writen and expected a browser to render, Firefox has done. Opera hasn't, not on only one occasion. I've also messed about with XSL transformations, Opera doesn't support them whatsoever. XSL transformations version 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116) has been a W3C recommendation since 16 November 1999).
I could rewrite the Acid page in a still-standard way and it WILL be rendered by Firefox.
-
So what's your point?
What's the point of the W3C recommending standards if no one follows them?
Not FireFox, Not Opera, and no way does IE.
Opera does far better than Firefox as far as the Acid2 test goes, but Opera dosen't (yet) support XSL or XSLT and it probably won't until (if ever) it becomes a proper standard which will depend on IE supporting it.
By the way JS support in Opera can be a problem in Linux, you have to install a package, fuck around a bit or something and I haven't got round to that yet.
It is a fact that most pages are designed with IE in mind and both Opera and Firefox suffer as a result, until this changes arguing about the differences between Firefox and Oper is pointless. I'd rather not waste my time and be more proactive in encouraging people to choose their browser wisely, I'd rather suggest as many browsers as possible rather than ramming Firefox down their throats.
-
I just lost a Fucking Huge reply to this thread because the electricity went off, with references and shtuff. Oh well.
What's the point of the W3C recommending standards if no one follows them?
Not FireFox, Not Opera, and no way does IE.
WTH, they all look at the W3C standards - well, at least Opera and Firefox, IE sometimes.
IE6 has pretty good XSLT support (I hear. I haven't used IE since learning what XSLT stands for) (bet you weren't expecting that :p). IE5 had incompatible XSLT support.
I'm not sure how long Firefox has it, but Opera ACTUALLY DOES support XSLT in 9.0 (horray!).
Opera also, I've noticed, kicks the shit outta everyone else when it comes to parts of DOM level 3. When I looked at save support for that 'draw' thing, DOM level 3's load and save support was a saviour. Opera is the only browser I know of that supports it. But Opera won't run the fucking thing properly anyhow so...
But Jesus, the shitty Javascript support is a killer for Opera users looking at my web-apps.
By the way JS support in Opera can be a problem in Linux, you have to install a package, fuck around a bit or something and I haven't got round to that yet.
Huh, what package? I wouldn't be surprised if JS was DISABLED on the Opera I'm using, except I would be because it passed a few tests I gave it.
But JESUS. WTF is the problem with my pages I'd like to know?
It is a fact that most pages are designed with IE in mind and both Opera and Firefox suffer as a result, until this changes arguing about the differences between Firefox and Oper is pointless. I'd rather not waste my time and be more proactive in encouraging people to choose their browser wisely, I'd rather suggest as many browsers as possible rather than ramming Firefox down their throats.
If someone prefers Firefox over Opera what's wrong with recommending it to an IE-friend? It's not like anyone's recommending it to an Opera-friend.
And noone's ramming anything down anyone's throats.
-
I just lost a Fucking Huge reply to this thread because the electricity went off, with references and shtuff. Oh well.
I hate it when that happens, I often do long posts in OOo first then save them so I don't loose the whole post if something bad happens. Sorry I'm not meaning to take the piss though imagine you were downloading a huge file an this happened, if you used Opera then you wouldn't loose your download, I think it might also have the ability to save the contents of webforms when you session save, I can't remember and I'm posting this from IE at work so I can't check at the moment, are they planning to implement these features in Firefox any time soon?
WTH, they all look at the W3C standards - well, at least Opera and Firefox, IE sometimes.
The problem is they aren't standard, I know you, me and everyone else confuses this point but they're just guidlines. Just wondering it must be pretty difficult to implement them as no browser fully supports them, that could be the problem.
IE6 has pretty good XSLT support (I hear. I haven't used IE since learning what XSLT stands for) (bet you weren't expecting that :p). IE5 had incompatible XSLT support.
I'm not sure how long Firefox has it, but Opera ACTUALLY DOES support XSLT in 9.0 (horray!).
Opera also, I've noticed, kicks the shit outta everyone else when it comes to parts of DOM level 3. When I looked at save support for that 'draw' thing, DOM level 3's load and save support was a saviour. Opera is the only browser I know of that supports it. But Opera won't run the fucking thing properly anyhow so...
But Jesus, the shitty Javascript support is a killer for Opera users looking at my web-apps.
I see your point, each browser has its strengths and weaknesses when it comes to standards support.
Huh, what package? I wouldn't be surprised if JS was DISABLED on the Opera I'm using, except I would be because it passed a few tests I gave it.
But JESUS. WTF is the problem with my pages I'd like to know?
I'll take your word for it, I don't view many Java scripted pages, I do use Firefox and even IE when I have problems viewing something in Opera, which isn't often.
If someone prefers Firefox over Opera what's wrong with recommending it to an IE-friend? It's not like anyone's recommending it to an Opera-friend.
Nothing at all, I always fact recommend them both.
And noone's ramming anything down anyone's throats.
I wan't accusing you, but some people are like people who put annoying popup boxes spamming visitors with anti-IE and pro-Firefox propaganda.
-
By fluke, I got the 'draw' thing to work in opera. And now the launcher thing, it was basically the same problem. (btw performance is noticably worse in opera 9.0b, and sometimes the events get, confused... the onmouseup event doesn't seem to fire all the time. (try dragging some lines))
Constants. (the last thing I looked at)
const is a Mozilla-specific extension, it is not supported by IE or Opera.
That I fucking hate about "Javascript" - the fucking grey. Javascript was actually a Netscape thing, and is now a Mozilla thing. JScript is a Microsoft thing. ECMAScript, a SUBSET of both Javascript and JScript is the only thing standard, and Opera and everyone conforms to it. And extend it brutally (because it's quite useless on it's own) - it would be nice if the extensions were standardized (but it would probably be too much work - the implementations are about 95% similar already, but the 5% is fucking annoying).
Opera, I'm guessing, do little of the original extending, I think they just pick stuff from the Javascript and JScript stuff to implement - and they didn't take const...
So, class, what have we learned? Javascript isn't a webstandard. (It's Mozilla's)
So meh, Opera, yer not too bad afterfuckingall.
-
It would be bad if they (intentionally) told Opera users they should use Firefox, maybe.
I hardly see it as bad... Opera is STILL proprietary and is just as bad, honestly. My opinion anyway.
-
I hardly see it as bad... Opera is STILL proprietary and is just as bad, honestly.
Oh no let's not have people using propri€tary $oftwar€z. :rolleyes:
Seriously it's got to be better than IE, it isn't distributed with an OS, it doesn't support ActiveX, it's free (as in beer) and it's more secure than both IE and Firefox - to this date no Opera vunerabilities have been found (I know they might exist and they're harder to find as it's closed source - all the better in my oppinion).
My opinion anyway.
Of course you're entitled to it and I respect it too but many people prefer a more feature packed, less bloated browser than Firefox, for me and many other people who use this site Firefox simply isn't good enough.
Here's some news for you, some people actually choose to use IE, they don't like Firefox or Opera, they like IE, they might prefer it because it loads faster or because it displays almost all the pages on the net correctly, (apart from some Linux/Mac/FirefoxFanboy/anti-Microsoft sites which they don't view anyway), perhapps they like some extension or 3rd party software that requires IE, whatever thier reason the prefer IE. I think we should respect this, fair enough maybe some banners and links but it's bad to spam them with bs about how good Firefox is apart from the fact that some of these I've come across contain lies, it's pretty low to spam people and it'll just put them off your site.
-
I hardly see it as bad... Opera is STILL proprietary and is just as bad, honestly. My opinion anyway.
Well, yes, if you wanna alert Opera users that there's a pretty good free browser called Firefox, go ahead. I won't. Only browsers that don't render my page as it should, browsers that don't pay enough attention to web-standards, will be alerted.
I wouldn't say opera is "just as bad" as IE. IE is destroying the web.
-
Only browsers that don't render my page as it should, browsers that don't pay enough attention to web-standards, will be alerted.
I can see your point but it is possible to create a page that follows web-standards 100% and no browser displays it properly because no browser is 100% compliant.
-
I can see your point but it is possible to create a page that follows web-standards 100% and no browser displays it properly because no browser is 100% compliant.
Konqueror 3.5 can do the acid2 test fine, but no other browsers I know of can.
-
I can see your point but it is possible to create a page that follows web-standards 100% and no browser displays it properly because no browser is 100% compliant.
It would depend on the browser and the standard. If I use some advanced features of e.g. CSS, I might be able to work-around, standardly, for the browsers that don't support that ADVANCED feature (this'd work with e.g. drop shadows).
The acid test page uses advanced features intentionally for something that would otherwise be fit to be done BETTER (but with the same output) with far less advanced features. If it was an actually-useful webapp I would respect it MUCH more, but I'm sure even then it could be shown that the advanced features can be worked araound in a standard way without using advanced features (which are harder to implement in browsers).
Konqueror 3.5 can do the acid2 test fine, but no other browsers I know of can.
Konqueror was the first web browser to do acid test increadibly-close-to-completely, but there was a seriously-minor problem with it (something to do with scrollbars), and then opera got to it.
-
Oh no let's not have people using propri
-
Konqueror 3.5 can do the acid2 test fine, but no other browsers I know of can.
Safari could BEFORE Konq... but that secret to khtml was thrown back at our qt friends from apple.
-
Why are you making fun of the GNU philosophy?
Because the whole "we hate propri€tary $oftwar€z" thing is plainly moronic, it doesn't help your cause, just because someone doesn't want to GPL their code it doesn't mean they have some evil agenda. I agree with many parts of the GNU philosophy, mosty with the freedom part and for me this includes the freedom to choose an open license like the GPL or BSD or to choose a proprietary licence when you release your work.
EDIT:
I also forgot to reinforce my previous point about some people prefering IE over FireFox and Opera, I think you should just leave them to it as it's their choice after all, just don't let them ask you for help if it goes down, you won't achieve anything by nagging these people apart from piss them off.
I don't get it... it's not like it's some 1337 script kiddie thing to believe.
I believe in free software, I just don't think it's always the best software, some of it's crap compared to the proprietary alternatives.
I've had more issues with Opera with plugins than in Firefox,
I've had issues with Firefox loosing my downloads when there's an interruption in the Internet connection or power supply and zooming in on pages containing pictures and Macromedia flash is ugly even with the picture zoom extension installed. I've not had to use any plugins with Opera as unlike Firefox it has all the features I need.
other than that Opera works fine and so does IE, as long as it's not by itself and has a registry guard running in the background.
To be honest, I haven't had any problems with Firefox apart from the downloads and zooming issues, oh and IE has these too, also I don't have registry guard because I don't need it.
In fact I notice very little difference... Konqueror3.2 and 3.5 is faster than any of them.
I agree Konqueror is great, it's probably the fastest browser out there apart from text mode browsers of course.
I take issue on the ideological end and I, like many others,
I myself am more objective, I look at what software fulfills my needs and then go and aquire it, sometimes free software meets my needs and often it doesn't so I'll use something non-free. I tend to look at the price, features and integration with other software (note open standards effect this) and I read reviews and search around the Internet for information, this is all before I look at the license.
see the failure of IE as a nice step in the direction of free and open standards.
You can have free and open standards without having free and open software you know, look at Adobe Acrobat, see how PDF is a free and open standard even though the software isn't? anyway I fail to see what this has to do with IE being shit. Hardare also can suffer from problems such as closed standards but I don't hear many people bitching about closed source hardware just software, which is pretty stupid in my opinion.
It makes me feel good inside, no need to rain on our parade, dude.
Now you're really sounding like a hippy man, cool dude, nah only joking. :D
-
I can see your point but it is possible to create a page that follows web-standards 100% and no browser displays it properly because no browser is 100% compliant.
Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari. Some of the seriously advanced (standard) stuff aren't even supported by many of these generally-good (when it comes to standards) browsers, but if you're using seriously advanced stuff then obviously it's a seriously advanced page you're making - feel free to alert users that it won't be rendered, and feel free to refer them to FF/Opera/Konq/Safari or whatever good browser WILL render the page (if they're visiting the page, it should be safe to assume they want to see it. When you alert them they can make their minds up if they wanna install FF, install Opera, install GNU/Linux (for example) + Konquror or buy a Mac (so they can use Safari)).
I found a really good answer to the question "Why are standards so important?", from the dillo web site (lots of good (as in good) stuff on that site:Why are standards so important?
When a page is not standards compliant it becomes slang, and as such its interpretation is subjective or, at best, only known to its creators.
Such pages, and particularly those with multiple slang instances, start to become only understandable by one interpreter (browser).
Once this happens, the universality of the WEB fails, because it restricts site usage to a certain browser.
Making your sites standards-compliant will help ensure every browser, old and new, will be able to present the sites properly, and also that they will work in the future, making your site accesible from a wide range of devices ranging from desktops to cell phones.
The universality and interoperability of the WEB is one of the biggest assets of mankind today. Liberty of expression and freedom of information have found their new home inside the fertile WEB space.
If you let a single corporation or entity the power to control the Internet's protocols, they would be able to control the WEB just as much as the mass-media.
Please don't let that happen.
BTW I used to use an extension that would persist Firefox. If the electricity went off, or something crashed, starting FF would just continue it like nothing happened. If I had the extension installed now and the power went off, once I run FF next time I'd still have my post infront of me. There is one problem that I heard about it though (never affected me though) - apparantly you can't install other extensions with it on (that's why I'm not installing it yet, until this is fixed).
-
One of my favourite reads ever (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
-
Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari. Some of the seriously advanced (standard) stuff aren't even supported by many of these generally-good (when it comes to standards) browsers, but if you're using seriously advanced stuff then obviously it's a seriously advanced page you're making - feel free to alert users that it won't be rendered, and feel free to refer them to FF/Opera/Konq/Safari or whatever good browser WILL render the page (if they're visiting the page, it should be safe to assume they want to see it. When you alert them they can make their minds up if they wanna install FF, install Opera, install GNU/Linux (for example) + Konquror or buy a Mac (so they can use Safari)).
The main point is if you want 90% of people to be able to view your page then don't do any advanced stuff most browsers won't work with as few people will change just to view your site, they'd rather go somewhere else.
I found a really good answer to the question "Why are standards so important?", from the dillo web site (lots of good (as in good) stuff on that site:
I agree standards are very important, in every aspect of technology, including hardware too.
BTW I used to use an extension that would persist Firefox. If the electricity went off, or something crashed, starting FF would just continue it like nothing happened. If I had the extension installed now and the power went off, once I run FF next time I'd still have my post infront of me. There is one problem that I heard about it though (never affected me though) - apparantly you can't install other extensions with it on (that's why I'm not installing it yet, until this is fixed).
Sounds handy, don't think even Opera supprts that, how about the contents of forms, if you were in the middle of typing a post would you loose it if the power went off?
One of my favourite reads ever
I'd rather not derail this thread so I'll be as brief as possible.
I found this article difficult to read he does bollock on a bit but none the less he does raises some valid points but I don't buy into all of them.
Like the economics of free software for example, he's obviosly thinking about operating systems and servers where the author can easilly make a profit on selling their services. However this doesn't transfer to other areas like computer games, (no one's going to play each level over and over until it's bug free) this is why open source software hasn't done very well in this area. I think free software is great but it isn't suitable for all business models, it depends on the type of software you're selling and the market you're aiming it at, saying there's only one way to do things is a very bad thing.
What about pattents?
We all bitch about software pattents but no one ever bitches about hardware pattents. From Stallman's point of view if you copy someone's invention and then start manufacturering it yourself you shouldn't be hurting them (I don't agree with this). There are serious implecations for hardware pattents, the main ones are storage media and protocol, it's the same principle, stopping the competing product interoperating with yours.
As far as I'm concerned pirating software is bad but it's not as bad as the companies say. Stealing software is like sneeking onto a bus or train or into a cinima or concert without paying or even watching cable TV with an illegal decoder, you're taking away their business.
-
The main point is if you want 90% of people to be able to view your page then don't do any advanced stuff most browsers won't work with as few people will change just to view your site, they'd rather go somewhere else.
How can you create a web-based SVG editor without using advanced stuff?
I don't know of any other web-based SVG editor the viewers will go to.
I agree standards are very important, in every aspect of technology, including hardware too.
Well yes.
Sounds handy, don't think even Opera supprts that, how about the contents of forms, if you were in the middle of typing a post would you loose it if the power went off?
Nope IIRC.
-
How can you create a web-based SVG editor without using advanced stuff?
Are you talking about SVG support in browsers?
IE has a plugin, so does Firefox and Opera 9 has some SVG support too, I don't know how good it is though.
Back to the that Firefox extension you talked about:
If the electricity went off, or something crashed, starting FF would just continue it like nothing happened.
In what way does it return back to the way it was when the power went off?
If it's downloading then Opera supports it but if you're talking about tabs and forms then no browser I know of supports that. I mean if Opera were to crash now (which is unlikely since I don't think it's ever crashed on me before) then it would load as it did when I last started it but all the downloads would resume of course.
Talking of browsers I've just discovered another one, it's called Orca (http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Orca_Browser/1128532815/1), I'm sure you've heard of Avant well, it's bascally the same thing but for the Gecko engine. I know you lot probably won't agree with it because of the license or the fact it's Windows only but it looks quite good, I think I'll try it, and if I like it then it might become my main Windows browser or I'll recommend it to Windows users.
-
Are you talking about SVG support in browsers?
No, I'm talking about something like this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/index.xhtml) (save support definetly possible, just not implemented fully).
IE has a plugin, so does Firefox and Opera 9 has some SVG support too, I don't know how good it is though.
FF has had a subset of SVG supported in 1.5 (they're improving it all the time). Opera 9's handling the basic SVG I've been feeding it.
Back to the that Firefox extension you talked about:
In what way does it return back to the way it was when the power went off?
If it's downloading then Opera supports it but if you're talking about tabs and forms then no browser I know of supports that. I mean if Opera were to crash now (which is unlikely since I don't think it's ever crashed on me before) then it would load as it did when I last started it but all the downloads would resume of course.
Can't find that fucking extension again, but IIRC it just saved basically everything (forms, tabs, the lot) every so often (very often) and loaded it when FF started again. Which is pretty shit because ya know the way u gotta restart FF to install/uninstall an extension? With that extension enabled you can't do either, so to get rid of it you gotta do it manually or remove your profile directory.
Talking of browsers I've just discovered another one, it's called Orca (http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Orca_Browser/1128532815/1), I'm sure you've heard of Avant well, it's bascally the same thing but for the Gecko engine. I know you lot probably won't agree with it because of the license or the fact it's Windows only but it looks quite good, I think I'll try it, and if I like it then it might become my main Windows browser or I'll recommend it to Windows users.
Jesus I can't see anything it has on FF. Looks like FF has fucking loads on it though (the fact that it's free software being one big one).
Whenever I wanna edit video, I'll look at Cinelera and kino before any non-free software. If they do the job good enough, I'll stick with them. If you wanna browser, why wouldn't the free browser do the job? OK, in some areas it's not good, but in other's it's King (think extensions) - AND IT'S FREE SOFTWARE.
-
Seeing as we're talking about browsers here I'll put this here.
I cannot believe what I read here (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx).Why aren
-
I dislike the use of JavaScript, because you can disable it in the browser.
If you have PHP on your server, try this:
$bladeraar = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
if(eregi("msie",$bladeraar) && !eregi("opera",$bladeraar))
{
echo("");
}
elseif(eregi("mspie",$bladeraar) || eregi("pocket",$bladeraar))
{
echo("");
}
else
{
echo("");
}
?>
I dislike meta redirects because they're not instant and don't always work. If you're doing php, why not:
$bladeraar = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
if(eregi("msie",$bladeraar) && !eregi("opera",$bladeraar))
{
header("location: http://www.browsehappy.com");
}
elseif(eregi("mspie",$bladeraar) || eregi("pocket",$bladeraar))
{
location:("location: http://www.browsehappy.com/");
}
else
{
header("location: index2.php");
}
?>
Of course, I hate that too, because it'd redirect to an "index2" and i hate those. Why not just include("checkie.php") at the top of every php file, that way, you can still have the content on the index page.
...just saying...
-
No, I'm talking about something like this (http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/index.xhtml) (save support definetly possible, just not implemented fully).
I had a feeling you meant something like that but there again the only question I have to ask is why?
If I want to edit an SVG I'll use Inkscape rather than a horribly slow web based program - the performance of your program is unacceptable on my machine, MS Draw was much more featured and would run on my old 386.
-
I dislike meta redirects because they're not instant and don't always work. If you're doing php, why not:
$bladeraar = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
if(eregi("msie",$bladeraar) && !eregi("opera",$bladeraar))
{
header("location: http://www.browsehappy.com");
}
elseif(eregi("mspie",$bladeraar) || eregi("pocket",$bladeraar))
{
location:("location: http://www.browsehappy.com/");
}
else
{
header("location: index2.php");
}
?>
Of course, I hate that too, because it'd redirect to an "index2" and i hate those. Why not just include("checkie.php") at the top of every php file, that way, you can still have the content on the index page.
...just saying...
Well, on old PHP versions, sending headers didn't work if another script already send a header.
But yes, it's way better this way, because now the browser can't say no to being sent to another page (by disabling meta tags).
Also, I do not like individual PHP files, I like one that loads all pages from a database and/or text files.
I used this script for a corperate website. I had to use some IE tricks to make transparant PNG images work. Those tricks brake down images on other browsers, so I had to seperate pages.
But for the purpose, it's better to place this script on top the index page, and replace the redirect to index2.php to
echo("");
-
I had a feeling you meant something like that but there again the only question I have to ask is why?
If I want to edit an SVG I'll use Inkscape rather than a horribly slow web based program - the performance of your program is unacceptable on my machine, MS Draw was much more featured and would run on my old 386.
It's noticibly faster on FF 1.5 than on Opera 9 on my machine. It's fast enough until you paint too much shit.
And it would be faster if snap wan't enabled by default (everytime you move the mouse over the canvas, the distance to each snappable_point (which could be hundreds - 2 for every line, 1 for every point, 4 for every rectangle, 2 for every freehand) is calculated and checked if it's less than 5 - everytime you move the mouse), but I'm keeping it enabled until I get the UI done (which might be a while) because it's far more fun with it on.
It will be useful e.g. to allow users to draw their own avators on a website. That's not why I started it though - I started it as a proof of concept and for educational purposes.
Well, on old PHP versions, sending headers didn't work if another script already send a header.
But yes, it's way better this way, because now the browser can't say no to being sent to another page (by disabling meta tags).
You can use output buffering (http://ie2.php.net/manual/en/function.ob-start.php, you can also enable it in php.ini with the output_buffering option) to get around that.
Before I discovered PHP's output buffering I used to write the document to a variable and echo it after any headers I might need to be sent are sent - messy.
-
It's noticibly faster on FF 1.5 than on Opera 9 on my machine. It's fast enough until you paint too much shit.
I haven't tried it on Opera 9, only Firefox 1.5 and it was too slow but your machine is probably much faster than my miserable 1800MHz box.
-
I haven't tried it on Opera 9, only Firefox 1.5 and it was too slow but your machine is probably much faster than my miserable 1800MHz box.
I've a 2600+.
Try this crappy version (no snap, no cursor (main reason I added the cursor was for snap anyhow)):
http://piratepenguin.porteighty.org/javascript/draw/crappycomputer/index.xhtml
Even just resizing the window and drawing to a smaller area should be faster (on this machine, full screen, dragging a rectangle from the top left corner to the bottom right is slow).
-
I found this article difficult to read he does bollock on a bit
Where exactly does he "bollock on a bit" ?
Like the economics of free software for example, he's obviosly thinking about operating systems and servers where the author can easilly make a profit on selling their services. However this doesn't transfer to other areas like computer games, (no one's going to play each level over and over until it's bug free) this is why open source software hasn't done very well in this area. I think free software is great but it isn't suitable for all business models, it depends on the type of software you're selling and the market you're aiming it at, saying there's only one way to do things is a very bad thing.
Well if you agree that for MOST software the developers could produce an income without being pissed off when I copy their software (game) for a friend, then that's a step up.
RE: game developers. If a revamp of copyright meant people can copy anything they want, always, - gamers would still need good games as much as they always have. If the developers need money, then someone will have to GIVE it to them. The gamers. If the gamers want good games, they gotta donate to the developers. Otherwise they just probably won't get them.
Same goes for movies and everything else.
What about pattents?
We all bitch about software pattents but no one ever bitches about hardware pattents. From Stallman's point of view if you copy someone's invention and then start manufacturering it yourself you shouldn't be hurting them (I don't agree with this).
IMO, if someone depends on an IDEA they had, maybe ten years ago, for income, that's just not good enough. If you have a brilliant idea, say you find a method to produce free energy, I don't think anyone should be obliged to give you money to use it. Anyone should be able to use that method all they want - people in poverty in Africa, should be allowd to use it to dig holes for wells etc.
A friend of mine had a cool idea to put breathilizers in cars, so if you're over the alcolol limit it won't let you drive. To think the law would allow him to become the "owner" of it for so long and only him and other people he decides on can use it to save a few lifes - bullshit.
One thing I do like about patents is that all the copy-protection SHIT is being patented, and thus noone can use this SHIT without paying/asking/whatever.
As far as I'm concerned pirating software is bad but it's not as bad as the companies say. Stealing software is like sneeking onto a bus or train or into a cinima or concert without paying or even watching cable TV with an illegal decoder, you're taking away their business.
There are people that can't AFFORD to pay into a cinema (cinema's are a complete rip-off IMO, at least here they are).
-
If only you could install Konqueror without KDE :(
-
Am I wicked for seeing Javascript to help IE users browsing your site. and immediately thinking "someone's made a drive-by-downloader that installs Firefox"? :D
-
If only you could install Konqueror without KDE :(
Why not just install KDE?
KDE > * ;)
-
KDE is not my favorite window manager ... I find it slow, illogically laid out, and slow to start ... the programs made for it are often pretty nice though
-
So why not run KDE programs in XFCE if you feel that way?
-
Yeah, that's pretty much the only thing I can do, but you still need kde base. They should make a self-contained version, maybe then it could stand a chance of competing with FF and Opera. Or is that not what they want ?
-
Yeah, that's pretty much the only thing I can do, but you still need kde base. They should make a self-contained version, maybe then it could stand a chance of competing with FF and Opera. Or is that not what they want ?
I don't think it has much of a chance against FF or Opera unless someone divises a genius plan to make it run on Windows and Mac OS X etc.
Web-browser that are tied to one enviornment (Konq, Safari) SUCK. There might be a market for a free (as in freedom), portable, decent web-browser built around KHTML and not using the unportable (AFAIK) KDE libs.
It would be cooler actually if the KDE guys decided to make the libs portable - like GTK+, glib and some of the GNOME stuff.
-
Where exactly does he "bollock on a bit" ?
I just don't like his writing style, but this is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Well if you agree that for MOST software the developers could produce an income without being pissed off when I copy their software (game) for a friend, then that's a step up.
I neither agree nor disagree, it just hasn't been proven, alright some developers can earn an income from free software but that doesn't mean evaryone can. I often think that some people are only making so much money from free software because they also develop non-free software that complements their free stuff, just look at Sun for example, I bet they wouldn't be able to sell so many copies of Star Office if they didn't have OpenOffice.org.
RE: game developers. If a revamp of copyright meant people can copy anything they want, always, - gamers would still need good games as much as they always have. If the developers need money, then someone will have to GIVE it to them. The gamers. If the gamers want good games, they gotta donate to the developers. Otherwise they just probably won't get them.
So you're talking about donorware, yes there is some of that about though I would hardly base a whole insudtry on it, there are also some good fangames about and there's the free games that come with Linux. I don't play many games myself though I think my brother would be pissed off if he
Same goes for movies and everything else.
And that's my point entirely, games, films and music are totally different to software.
IMO, if someone depends on an IDEA they had, maybe ten years ago, for income, that's just not good enough. If you have a brilliant idea, say you find a method to produce free energy, I don't think anyone should be obliged to give you money to use it. Anyone should be able to use that method all they want - people in poverty in Africa, should be allowd to use it to dig holes for wells etc.
But one the same line of thought, I wouldn't be very happy if I invested billions in the development of a gadget and another company comes a long and manages to produce it cheaper because they don't have any development costs + they get they use child labor in China.
A friend of mine had a cool idea to put breathilizers in cars, so if you're over the alcolol limit it won't let you drive. To think the law would allow him to become the "owner" of it for so long and only him and other people he decides on can use it to save a few lifes - bullshit.
I know this isn't the point here but no one would want it, it's kind of a nanny sate issue.
I see your point though, but drug companies pattent medicines all the time and they sell them very cheeply to developing countries (often at a loss), they only get their money back by making them more expensive for the developed world. Normally medicines are only so expensive because companies invest so much in developing them (it costs more to develop a new drug than it does to send a rocket into space), if pattents were abolished then they wouldn't invest so much in developing new drugs as they won't have any guarantee they'll be able to get their money back.
One thing I do like about patents is that all the copy-protection SHIT is being patented, and thus noone can use this SHIT without paying/asking/whatever.
The only thig I don't like about copy protection is it removes your rights of fair use which I think should become more defined as far as the law is concerned, and this is exactly what I was talking about here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10118) (not that that many people actually gave a fuck). Perhapps if the copy protection crap could even remain legal just as long as you can exchange damaged media for a new copy providing they don't charge any more than is reasonable for distributing it.
There are people that can't AFFORD to pay into a cinema (cinema's are a complete rip-off IMO, at least here they are).
This interests me a lot, my parents often say how expensive the cinema is nowadays but I don't knoe if I agree since they're not taking decimalisation or average earnings into account.