Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No problem with FF 3.6 so far! (Score 1) 366

by pbf (#39521595) Attached to: Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility

With FF 11, it was some obscure change with CORS xmlHTTPRequests that worked on FF 10, but not anymore on FF11. I am not talking about a plugin or anything like that, just a web site that worked under FF 10 but not anymore on FF 11.

Just like what the author of the article is complaining about, TinyMCE (as the version used on some sites he needs) stopped working with FF11.

You can always claim that this is not the fault of FF, but at the point where FF is not able to display the sites you rely on consistently after every other upgrade, you know you need to switch to another browser that does not require web sites updates every time the browser is updated.

This (along with plugins) is the best way to loose users. We used to tell our customers to use FF as the preferred browser, we now advocate Chrome. This is just less trouble for us and our customers. Too bad.

Comment: No problem with FF 3.6 so far! (Score 2) 366

by pbf (#39520369) Attached to: Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility

The article is really well balanced. No offence, but every 6 weeks I am reminded why sticking with FF 3.6 is a good idea, as I see my colleagues scream at FF because of yet another broken thing.

Rapid releases are not a bad idea as long as you do it right (like chrome), if you do it wrong (like FF), it just pisses everybody off.

What the Moz team seams to not understand is that doing rapid release right means that users should not notice. With FF, users are hurt every 6 weeks, the bugs fixed and new features are probably nice, but they are not worth the pain of having something that does not work in a predictable way in the long run.

The good news is that there are alternatives:
- Chrome
- FF ESR (to some extent)
- FF 3.6

But for me, the plain FF with auto-updates, no thank you.

Comment: Re:The reasons for SSL (Score 2, Interesting) 432

by pbf (#28834895) Attached to: Security Certificate Warnings Don't Work

So true!

Anytime you try to combine two goals in one design you are sure to make a bad decision. SSL is no exception. Both authentication and encryption are valuable. Why make the later depend on the former ??? This is just a blatant beginner's design mistake, there is no excuse for this. I am still waiting for somebody trying to explain me how this was a good idea in the first place.

The only players who gain anything from that are the certificate monopolies.

And the funniest thing is that nobody seems to be trying to fix the problem. The closest thing that resembles a fix for this mistake are the self-signed certificates, but none of the major browser accept them for what they are (I want encryption, I don't care for authentication), and instead insist in scaring everybody off. Sad sad sad!

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...