Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Awesome for FireFox! (Score 1) 199

Not only that, but on his other point, the memshrink project took off, Firefox has been using significantly less memory than other browsers.
On my system, for 5-10 tabs, Firefox uses about half as much memory as Chrome. For a large number of tabs, Chrome explodes to gigabytes of memory while Firefox doesn't go up by much at all.
Not to mention tab groups make organising that large number of tabs a lot easier.

Comment Re:Cheap alternative to Retina MacBook (Score 4, Informative) 392

Bit of clarification on the linux instructions.

Has the typing commands portion of the instructions simplified down to:
wget; sudo bash 34v87

run at least twice.

sudo cgpt add -i 6 -P 5 -S 1 /dev/mmcblk0

To set ubuntu as the default boot.

So. No need to type in anything too complex w/ dd

Comment Re:1.6 ghz? (Score 5, Informative) 284

As someone with some game development experience, let me throw in some observations. (*based on the specs mentioned here).

The 3.2 Ghz Power PC CPUs in the Xbox 360 and PS3 were in-order execution units. As I remember, code on the 360 typically executed about 0.2 IPC -(Instructions per cycle), sometimes worse. The very best hand optimized assembler doing tasks like video decoding could execute about 0.9 IPC once properly cached and unrolled.

AMD and Intel have decades of R&D now into out-of-order x86 execution (the x86/x64 opcodes being translated to internal micro ops), which is a major factor in their performance. Even the Power PC G5 chip devoted a good chunk of its silicon to Out-or-order execution. The 360 and PS3 CPUs - designed almost 10 years ago - traded Out of Order execution for die size and clock speed.

The specs say that the 1.6 Ghz CPUs can issue up to 2 instructions per cycle. If real world performance works out to an IPC of 1.2 to 1.6, which seems very doable, then you will see a 3x to 4x increase in the real-world rate of instructions being performed . ( 0.2 IPC @ 3.2Ghz == 0.4 IPC @ 1.6Ghz ). This doesn't take into account any efficiency gains due to the instruction set, cache, etc.

And at the same time, I would imagine it's a whole lot easier to deal with other things on the chipsets at 1,.6Ghz than at 3.2 Ghz (mature tech and all that)

Comment Re:Please include flash! (Score 1) 181

Oh. Then there are sites that use "detection" code and won't even show you a click-to-play area on the screen. They'll simply bounce you to some error content if they fail to create the invisible flash content.

Hopefully this sort of poor behaviour is becoming rarer. Esp since Firefox on my Android tablet/phone prompts for flash too, which will hopefully drive some website awareness.

Comment Re:Please include flash! (Score 1) 181

The problem I ran into w/ FlashBlock was needing a ton of whitelisting. And for silly things even, like playing sounds.
For example, gmail would use flash (don't know if it still does) for the ping when someone sent you a chat message.
It created that invisibly, so FlashBlock didn't work - I guess prompting would, but it wasn't obvious what people were whitelisting.

Another one that did that, the game Enlightenment would use flash as a fallback after attempting HTML5 sound w/ mp3 only (no ogg fallback) so also needed manual whitelisting due to invisible content.

Again, the notification prompt in the new Mozilla interface will at least tell someone, but if they don't realise what they are whitelisting (assume it is some crappy flash ad or something) they'll get a worse experience.

So. I'm going w/ pervasiveness, and use of hidden flash for audio.

Comment Compiz shaders (Score 1) 195

They can be applied to any window w/ a key combo, and are fairly customisable.
Here's a custom one applied to Firefox, is one that preserves colours while inverting lightness.

Arbitrary tweaks of the values. Apologies for the relative unreadableness of the script (variable reuse, bad names) was just a quick implementation of:

To be actually usable for routine web browsing.

Comment Re:Traffic is *supposed to* be proxied. (Score 1) 200

Indeed, that iPhone behaviour was very irritating to me when I was travelling, and borrowed my SO's 1st gen iphone to connect to my home server to check e-mail. There was no way whatsoever to inspect the certificate, so I just had to hope the people running the network weren't evil.
Now I have an Android phone of my own, and can just run Firefox on it (love the Sync feature - saves so much time on moving browsing session from computer to phone, and when entering passwords).

Comment Re:Traffic is *supposed to* be proxied. (Score 2) 200

You don't need client side certificates to be sure in a normal situation that your traffic isn't being hijacked by the ISP.
You only need confidence that the CAs aren't issuing certs for the site you are connecting to, which is why when TURKTRUST issued a cert for google it was Big Deal.

In this case, they are using preinstalled certs on the local browsers to perform MITM when connecting to supposedly secure sites, such as your bank.

Some workplaces do this sort of cert preinstallation to allow snooping on SSL traffic passing through their proxies. Obviously same solution as with Nokia. If you don't like your private information passing in the clear through some random server controlled by your ISP or employer, quit.

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.