Charging a premium for not-shitty languages encourages continued development of applications in the shitty language because site owners know they'll be able to get a discount by paying only for the use of the shitty language. Do you agree at least with this point? And what should have been done in the first place to discourage widespread use of the shitty language?
Most PCs do not include range finding hardware. If they do include a webcam, it isn't stereoscopic. So you'll need to tell the window system explicitly how far away you plan to sit. Divide 2688 by your viewing distance in inches (1 m = 39.37 in), increase it somewhat if you have poor vision, and put that into your window system's DPI field.
The behavior you describe appears to qualify as a defect in Google Chrome. Run Chrome on a Retina or other high DPI display, take a screenshot, then report the problem to Google. Or did Google already mark a report as "WONTFIX"?
The last time fully decimal time was imposed by law, the people rejected it. It was imposed in France on 22 September 1794 after the French Revolution and revoked 7 April 1795 when France adopted what is now SI. Swatch tried again privately in 1998, dividing the day into a thousand 86.4 s millidays called ".beats", and it didn't catch on either. This is why the hour, day, and year still "are accepted for use with SI" (source). Thus, the kilowatt hour isn't an SI unit proper, but it's still "accepted for use with SI" with the value 3.6 MJ, much as the kilocalorie of food energy is 4184 J.
If Google really cared about free software they should remove the non-free bits and make it just free software.
Most people are not free software purists and thus would prefer to use a web browser capable of playing Hollywood movies instead of a browser that is free software. Shipping a binary distribution of only the free parts would incur extra quality assurance costs that Google is likely unwilling to pay. So how should Google remove the SWF player and DRM components without compromising functionality that the end user expects?
Would you want other users to be able to post as Dog-Cow? Because if you don't subscribe, you don't get HTTPS, and if you don't use HTTPS when posting, others can intercept and clone your session cookie.
The reason it's not in their official repositories is more an ideological one, supposedly the packaging of customised dependencies rather than integrating more naturally with the ecosystem goes against the ideals of whomever has authority over what does and does not go in the official list.
If forking a library for use in Chrome is considered harmful, what is Google supposed to do instead when upstream rejects Google's patches to the library?
If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone.
You're kidding? Sites actually do that!?
Ostensibly, protecting inexperienced users from the social engineering exploit known as "self-XSS". Self-XSS occurs when an attacker convinces an inexperienced to paste malicious code into the developer console. This is why Facebook also disables the developer console (though Facebook reportedly provides an opt-out). But the real reason is probably three words: digital restrictions management. It's similar to how Google Play Movies refused to play on rooted devices prior to mid-2012, and other apps have needed things like "RootCloak".
Chromium (which IS open source) apparently has build issues and isn't even in the normal Fedora repos.
Fedora's fault. In Xubuntu, a Debian derivative, all I have to do is sudo apt-get install chromium-browser.
And the memory footprint of all browsers is crazy now.
Is this the fault of the browser or of the sites you visit? Back when sites weren't as image- and script-heavy, like Better MF Website, a graphical browser could actually fit on a 16 MB machine. Nowadays sites are covered with carousels full of high-DPI photos, plus developers think they still need jQuery and all its bloat just to get the site out the door faster.
I also don't appreciate them throwing unnecessary crap into the browser like the web developer stuff
Browser developers distribute the debugger with all copies of the browser to keep sites from intentionally detecting a debugger's presence and stopping working if one is found. If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone.
I use chrome because I also own a chromebook and I can't run safari on that. Basically, google is doing the same thing microsoft did to make IE dominant by not allowing other browsers on their platform.
Apple is free to port Safari to Windows or X11/Linux, but it chooses not to. It used to port Safari to Windows but no longer does.
A lot of sites are laid out so inflexibly that zooming in causes a horizontal scroll bar.
There is lots of valid use for http, including developing something real quick without bothering to get/create an ssl cert for your internal box
The forthcoming Let's Encrypt project will allow "get[ting]/creat[ing] an ssl cert" without any "bothering" beyond an install command.
Things where you just transfer bulk data that is of little value.
Is it really of so little value that you care not a whit whether the data you received is identical to the data that was sent? If so, extract an identical number of bytes from
And before you get on me about Chrome not being proprietary I wouldn't consider any program which includes non-free bits free software.
If you're a purist, which PC do you use that has a free BIOS and CPU microcode? Besides, there are other distributions of Chromium Browser without the proprietary parts.
In my own testing, I typically assume half screen 960x1080 (press Win+Right to use Snap) and occasionally test on a 10" laptop whose screen has about the same width. The narrower layout works well with tablets as well.
yes, i know, about Explorer, the point is that competition does exists now.
Competition also slowly convinced Microsoft to at least try to keep up with the HTML living standard rather than stagnating. Users of Windows 7 are eligible for Internet Explorer 11, which supports new web platform features reasonably well according to caniuse.com. Right now the biggest headache is Internet Explorer pre-10, such as the IE 8 used by Windows XP diehards.
But it might be financially sound to just ignore the market of users of IE on Windows XP. Here's my reasoning: Operating system holes render browser security meaningless. If Windows XP is no longer supported, Microsoft is no longer patching known vulnerabilities that allow a miscreant to install a keylogger or other backdoor. And if a machine has such malware, any payment credentials or other private information sent to or from that machine isn't secret. A criminal could compromise Windows XP on a customer's PC, copy the credit card number that a user keys in, and then make fraudulent charges to that account. If you don't let users of known insecure browsers make a purchase, you won't have to worry as much about chargebacks.