Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #26272 > unrolled thread

RE: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way. "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-07-30 19:32 +0000
    Re: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-31 02:25 +0000
      Firefox 3.6 [OT] (was: Re: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way.) Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2012-07-31 08:59 -0500

#26272 — RE: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way.

> >> I would suggest you change the theme -- using Firefox 3.6 the page is
> >> very difficult to read.
> >
> > Thanks for the report. Do you mind if I ask why you are using such an
> > old version?
> > (It looks fine with Firefox 14.0.1)
> 
> 
> That version works for me -- I don't like upgrading to a new version of
> bugs if I don't have to.  ;)

Why do you prefer to keep your old security holes? 

Ramit

This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26286

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:32:47 +0000, Prasad, Ramit wrote:

>> >> I would suggest you change the theme -- using Firefox 3.6 the page
>> >> is very difficult to read.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the report. Do you mind if I ask why you are using such an
>> > old version?
>> > (It looks fine with Firefox 14.0.1)

Firefox 3.6 is not "such an old version". It is the currently supported 
version in RHEL and Centos, and under the rebranded name Iceweasel, 
Debian Squeeze.


>> That version works for me -- I don't like upgrading to a new version of
>> bugs if I don't have to.  ;)
> 
> Why do you prefer to keep your old security holes?

I don't. But in my experience, the risk of security breaches is *much* 
less than the chance that the new version will break functionality, 
introduce bugs, have a worse user interface, and generally be a step 
backwards rather than forward.

Security fixes are orthogonal to new features and UI changes. Any 
software which forces you to take unwanted new features and accept UI 
degradation in order to get security fixes is doing the wrong thing, and 
almost certainly adding new security holes as fast as they remove them.

When it comes to browsers, I would rather rely on dedicated security 
features like NoScript that has a stable UI and continual functional 
improvements, than to get on the Firefox upgrade treadmill. When I 
upgrade my OS, I'll get a new major release of Firefox. With luck, all 
the kinks will be ironed out by then. Until then, Firefox 3.6 is stable 
and works.

Besides, it is amazing what a better browsing experience you get by 
disabling 99% of all Flash and 95% of all Javascript.

Python is one of the few cases where I can implicitly trust that each 
upgrade is an actual *upgrade*, not a downgrade with a higher version 
number like KDE 3 -> KDE 4, or a sidegrade, like Firefox.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26311 — Firefox 3.6 [OT] (was: Re: [ANN] pyknon: Simple Python library to generate music in a hacker friendly way.)

On 7/30/2012 9:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I don't. But in my experience, the risk of security breaches is *much* 
> less than the chance that the new version will break functionality, 
> introduce bugs, have a worse user interface, and generally be a step 
> backwards rather than forward.
4.0 sucked. It had a radically new UI and it broke heaps of add-ons and
it leaked memory. 5.0 was slightly better, but still sucked because it
still leaked memory. 6.0 didn't suck so much because the memory leaks
were taken care of, and by this point there were extensions to deal with
certain issues (like not having a place for status bar icons). By 7.0,
there weren't really any more problems. By no means was the process
painless, but I've found the new UI to be a bit better than the old one
(at this point - not when 4.0 came out) now that the dust has settled.
-- 
CPython 3.3.0b1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17803

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web