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

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #12951 > unrolled thread

Harder to keep loving Firefox

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-05 21:41 -0500
    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-04-06 05:20 +0200
      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-06 04:32 -0500
        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-06 04:36 -0500
    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox John Diamond <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-06 04:24 +0100
      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-04-07 11:59 +0200
    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-06 09:44 -0400
      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-06 17:48 -0500
        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-07 08:10 -0400
          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 13:32 -0500
            Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-07 15:31 -0400
              Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 19:01 -0500
          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-04-07 13:49 -0600
            Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox (PS) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-04-07 13:52 -0600
            Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-07 17:29 -0400
              Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 19:57 -0500
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-07 22:25 -0400
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 22:54 -0500
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-08 06:58 +0100
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 08:37 -0400
              Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-08 06:55 +0100
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 08:47 -0400
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox fredl@invalid.com - 2025-04-08 14:50 -0500
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-04-08 22:18 +0200
                      Harder to keep loving Firefox News <dnews@triffid.co.uk> - 2025-04-09 10:20 +0100
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-04-09 20:50 +0200
                          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-09 17:06 -0400
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 17:19 -0400
                      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-04-08 23:55 +0200
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 20:12 -0400
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-09 15:10 +0000
                          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-09 16:27 +0100
        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-04-07 19:27 +0200
        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:50 -0700
          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-11 16:45 -0500
            Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 09:29 -0700
              Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-13 17:15 +0000
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 12:36 -0700
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-13 16:54 -0500
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-13 16:05 -0700
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> - 2025-04-14 03:11 -0400
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-14 06:21 -0500
                      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 08:03 -0700
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-16 08:17 -0700
                          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 08:49 -0700
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-04-16 16:43 +0100
                          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 09:59 -0700
                        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-16 16:40 +0000
                          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-16 14:22 -0500
                            Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-04-16 21:42 +0200
                              Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-16 19:33 -0500
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:59 -0700
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-13 23:46 -0500
                  Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:22 -0700
                    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-14 08:07 +0100
                Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-14 17:40 +0000
      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-09 02:17 -0500
    Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-07 08:36 +0100
      Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 05:52 -0500
        Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-07 13:05 +0100
          Re: Harder to keep loving Firefox VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-07 13:54 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#13075

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes:
> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.

No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
 -WBE

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

#13077

Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>
>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
> 
> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]

For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
files and *directories*.

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html

On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.

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

#13095

On 4/14/25 4:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>>
>>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
>> 
>> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
> 
> For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
> folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
> files and *directories*.
> 
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html
> 
> On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
> were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.

The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call 
subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap... 
Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name 
on it was written to them PERSONALLY.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
    Olympics:  even if you win, you're still retarded."

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

#13097

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:03:33 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/25 4:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>>>
>>>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
>>> 
>>> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
>> 
>> For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
>> folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
>> files and *directories*.
>> 
>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html
>> 
>> On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
>> were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.
>
>The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call 
>subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap... 

Not in Win 11... and a user isn't forced to place items in Plain Jane
Documents/Music/Pictures/Videos.

Another First World Problem requiring blood-pressure medication...

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

#13100

On 4/16/25 8:17 AM, Nobody wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:03:33 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 4/14/25 4:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>>>>
>>>>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
>>>> 
>>>> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
>>> 
>>> For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
>>> folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
>>> files and *directories*.
>>> 
>>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html
>>> 
>>> On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
>>> were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.
>>
>>The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call 
>>subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap... 
> 
> Not in Win 11... and a user isn't forced to place items in Plain Jane
> Documents/Music/Pictures/Videos.

Win7, and the only thing I use it for is HRBlock tax shit, which I allow 
to put its files wherever it wants so I don't have to think about the 
LOGICAL place I put stuff when I do next year's taxes.

When I bought a win10 laptop it offered a free win11 upgrade.  I'm sorry 
I chose that -- it requires more brute force than win10 did.  Haven't 
used it for at least a year, though.

> Another First World Problem requiring blood-pressure medication...

Fortunately some of us are immune.  Especially fortunate because I am a 
born error-seeker.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
    Olympics:  even if you win, you're still retarded."

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

#13099

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:03:33 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/25 4:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>>>
>>>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
>>> 
>>> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
>> 
>> For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
>> folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
>> files and *directories*.
>> 
>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html
>> 
>> On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
>> were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.
>
>The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call 
>subdirectories "MY photos", "MY documents", "MY steaming pile of crap"... 

   ... my addition of quotey-marks ... sorry. I just find that easier
to read. 

>Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name 
>on it was written to them PERSONALLY.

 I've never really tried to find out but why didn't Microsoft use a
little API or Macro or something to call those things "Jane's Videos"
when the User in play is "Jane" instead of using the generic "My"? 
 
 Yes, it would mean a couple of lines more of bloat but considering
how huge Windows is that wouldn't even be noticed. 

 Or would that not be possible? 

 The main reason I'd have preferred that scheme is that I, too,
*detest* all of those "My Junk" dire.... sorry, *folders*. I don't
think that I have *ever* used them, though some installed programs do
if I can't find a way of stopping them from doing so. It would also
have made PC's *look* a little more "personal", a little less
clinical, industrial and mass-produced. 

 Could it be that no-one thought of it?  

                                                              J. 

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

#13123

On 4/16/25 8:43 AM, John wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:03:33 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 4/14/25 4:21 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>>>>
>>>>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
>>>> 
>>>> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]
>>> 
>>> For file system objects that hold files, are they called directories or
>>> folders on your Linux computer?  The description of 'ls' is to list
>>> files and *directories*.
>>> 
>>> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ls.1.html
>>> 
>>> On Linux, directories hold files, not folders.  For Windows, directories
>>> were also first used, but Microsoft changed to using folders.
>>
>>The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call 
>>subdirectories "MY photos", "MY documents", "MY steaming pile of crap"... 
> 
>     ... my addition of quotey-marks ... sorry. I just find that easier
> to read.

No problem.  I like them too, but I have to look at my keyboard to find 
them.  People who learned to type on blacked-out manual keyboards and 
who never actually finger-automated the number row are at a definite 
disadvantage.

Moreover, some of the punctuation etc. characters have moved around, and 
new ones have been added.  I should spend time teaching my brain about 
the "new" arrangement, but I won't.

>>Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name 
>>on it was written to them PERSONALLY.
> 
>   I've never really tried to find out but why didn't Microsoft use a
> little API or Macro or something to call those things "Jane's Videos"
> when the User in play is "Jane" instead of using the generic "My"?

What's wrong with plain old 'Documents'?  This is MY fucking computer, 
who else would they belong to?

>   Yes, it would mean a couple of lines more of bloat but considering
> how huge Windows is that wouldn't even be noticed.
> 
>   Or would that not be possible?
> 
>   The main reason I'd have preferred that scheme is that I, too,
> *detest* all of those "My Junk" dire.... sorry, *folders*. I don't
> think that I have *ever* used them, though some installed programs do
> if I can't find a way of stopping them from doing so. It would also
> have made PC's *look* a little more "personal", a little less
> clinical, industrial and mass-produced.

I really despise faux cordiality.  I especially despise it in junk mail 
because the bastards sprinkle it over the contents as well as the 
envelope.  If I had a shredder next to my chair I wouldn't mind, but I 
refuse to recycle anything with my unaltered name/address (a friend 
throws it in the trash and dumps the cat litter box as the final step) 
and tear identity-stuff up by hand.  I approve of recycling paper 
(assuming it actually gets recycled) and resent the stupidity of the 
companies' fake personalization.

>   Could it be that no-one thought of it?

I believe they think of everything, especially if it seems profitable. 
That's fine, but it doesn't excuse stuff I find annoying.


-- 
Cheers,Bev
    Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level
    and beat you with experience!

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

#13104

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:03:33 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

[snip]

> The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call
> subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap...
> Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name
> on it was written to them PERSONALLY.

I never liked that MY stuff either. I try to set programs to save things 
into appropriately named directories that have nothing to do with anything 
M$ created.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Here's what happens when you die--you sit in a box and get eaten by
worms. I guarantee you that nothing cool happens when you die." [Howard
Stern, on E! network show, 4/12/95]

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

#13110

Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
> 
>> The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call
>> subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap...
>> Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name
>> on it was written to them PERSONALLY.
> 
> I never liked that MY stuff either. I try to set programs to save things 
> into appropriately named directories that have nothing to do with anything 
> M$ created.

Maybe (a wild ass guess) Microsoft figured users would get more into
networked resources, like shared drives and UNC paths, so a user might
see My Docs, V's docs, Mark's Docs, Bev's Docs, Work Docs, etc.  That
is, you could have multiple "docs" directories, er, folders.

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

#13112

On 16.04.2025 21:22, VanguardLH wrote:
> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>> 
>>> The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call
>>> subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap...
>>> Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name
>>> on it was written to them PERSONALLY.
>> 
>> I never liked that MY stuff either. I try to set programs to save things 
>> into appropriately named directories that have nothing to do with anything 
>> M$ created.
> 
> Maybe (a wild ass guess) Microsoft figured users would get more into
> networked resources, like shared drives and UNC paths, so a user might
> see My Docs, V's docs, Mark's Docs, Bev's Docs, Work Docs, etc.  That
> is, you could have multiple "docs" directories, er, folders.

What's even worse was the "Documents and Settings" folder.
Localized to "Dokumente und Einstellungen" (German).
Then in Win7 changed to "Users/Admin/Application Data",
"Benutzer/Admin/Anwedungsdaten", WTF?

in App Data 3 directories: Local, Local Low, Roaming (WTAF?)

system32 is full of 64 bit binaries.

M$ developers are fucking morons.

In the latest Win11 update a "C:\inetpub" was created.
Why??? Because it's a mitigation to CVE-2025-xxxx priviledge
escalation vulnerability. DO NOT DELETE!

LOL!

ciao...

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

#13118

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

> On 16.04.2025 21:22, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The most annoying thing M$ did (well, one of them) was call
>>>> subdirectories MY photos, MY documents, MY steaming pile of crap...
>>>> Pandering to the idiots who believe that the junk mail with their name
>>>> on it was written to them PERSONALLY.
>>> 
>>> I never liked that MY stuff either. I try to set programs to save things 
>>> into appropriately named directories that have nothing to do with anything 
>>> M$ created.
>> 
>> Maybe (a wild ass guess) Microsoft figured users would get more into
>> networked resources, like shared drives and UNC paths, so a user might
>> see My Docs, V's docs, Mark's Docs, Bev's Docs, Work Docs, etc.  That
>> is, you could have multiple "docs" directories, er, folders.
> 
> What's even worse was the "Documents and Settings" folder.
> Localized to "Dokumente und Einstellungen" (German).
> Then in Win7 changed to "Users/Admin/Application Data",
> "Benutzer/Admin/Anwedungsdaten", WTF?
> 
> in App Data 3 directories: Local, Local Low, Roaming (WTAF?)
> 
> system32 is full of 64 bit binaries.
> 
> M$ developers are fucking morons.
> 
> In the latest Win11 update a "C:\inetpub" was created.
> Why??? Because it's a mitigation to CVE-2025-xxxx priviledge
> escalation vulnerability. DO NOT DELETE!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ciao...

I remember C:\InetPub was created and use by Microsoft's IIS (Internet
Information Services) web server.  For the CVE fix, the folder is
created with read-only permissions, but the fix isn't publicly disclosed
why this mitigates some malware.  Maybe some malware tries to modify the
contents of this folder to fuck up a web server, and read-only neuters
the malware.  Rather stupid fix rather than detecting and nullifying the
malware when it appears or attempts to act.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/14/windows_update_inetpub/

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-windows-inetpub-folder-created-by-security-fix-dont-delete/
"However, according to user reports, the April cumulative updates will
fail to install if the C:\inetpub directory is created before update
deployment."

So what if the user is running the IIS server which creates that folder?

https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-21204
"Improper link resolution before file access ('link following') in
Windows Update Stack allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges
locally."

"link following" has too many definitions.  What the hell Microsoft is
doing with the bait folder has not yet been explained.  I know other
products that use baits to detect if malware has fucked over files.  For
example, for SyncBack, I can create a bait *.doc file in the Documents
folder for which its hash gets stored with whatever you put in the file.
If hit with ransomware, it attacks documents, so it encrypts, renames,
deletes, or moves the bait file.  When Syncback sees the file isn't
where it is supposed to reside, or the hash doesn't match, it blocks
running any of its sync jobs since that means good backup copies of doc
files would be getting overwritten with ransomed copies from the
original locations in the sync jobs.

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

#13094

On 4/14/25 12:11 AM, Winston wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes:
>> In a command shell, you still use 'dir', not 'fol[der]'.
> 
> No, I usually use "ls".  :-P  :)  [Well, except on MSFT Windows.]

My most frequently used alias for ls sorts the current subdirectory by 
time, newest on top.  One line per file, all attributes, one screenful 
at a time.  I have others that sort differently.  I began using things 
like that back in DOS days.

I don't see how people can live with the simple ls.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
    Olympics:  even if you win, you're still retarded."

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

#13071

On 13 Apr 2025 17:15:26 GMT, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:29:42 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I have an extensive folder system (GOD I hate calling them folders!) on
>> my computer, so none is needed at the website.  The phone etc. email is
>> only used occasionally for current messages with no need for sorting,
>> storage etc.
>
>I think of a "folder" as a piece of light cardboard wrapped around papers, 
>that you have to be very careful with or you get a disorganized mess on 
>the floor. Computers are supposed to be an improvement over that. Using 
>that word for a subdirectory seems like the opposite of progress.
> 
>[snip]

IMHO, "directory" was a poor choice back in the CLI/DOS days of
computing, but it's all we had and everyone quickly got used to it. With
the advent of GUIs, "directory" became completely inadequate. "Folder"
is obviously a much better term, especially compared to the obsolete
"directory". Some day, an even better term may well come along.

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

#13073

On 4/13/25 9:46 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2025 17:15:26 GMT, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:29:42 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> I have an extensive folder system (GOD I hate calling them folders!) on
>>> my computer, so none is needed at the website.  The phone etc. email is
>>> only used occasionally for current messages with no need for sorting,
>>> storage etc.
>>
>>I think of a "folder" as a piece of light cardboard wrapped around papers, 
>>that you have to be very careful with or you get a disorganized mess on 
>>the floor. Computers are supposed to be an improvement over that. Using 
>>that word for a subdirectory seems like the opposite of progress.
>> 
>>[snip]
> 
> IMHO, "directory" was a poor choice back in the CLI/DOS days of
> computing, but it's all we had and everyone quickly got used to it. 

Ridiculous, and I will fight you to the death to defend 'directory', 
which includes 'subdirectory'.

> With
> the advent of GUIs, "directory" became completely inadequate. "Folder"
> is obviously a much better term, especially compared to the obsolete
> "directory". Some day, an even better term may well come along.

No.  A directory is a concept and might be anything.  A folder is 
obviously a tangible thing which we all know is made of paper or light 
cardboard and is actually a FILE containing MORE PAPER.

I'd go with 'cabinet' instead of 'directory' if you insist, but 'folder' 
is just out of the question.

Words MEAN SOMETHING, for chrissake :-(


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "I love to go down to the schoolyard  and watch all the
     little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
     screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks."   --Emo

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

#13074

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On 4/13/25 9:46 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2025 17:15:26 GMT, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:29:42 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> I have an extensive folder system (GOD I hate calling them folders!) on
>>>> my computer, so none is needed at the website.  The phone etc. email is
>>>> only used occasionally for current messages with no need for sorting,
>>>> storage etc.
>>>
>>>I think of a "folder" as a piece of light cardboard wrapped around papers, 
>>>that you have to be very careful with or you get a disorganized mess on 
>>>the floor. Computers are supposed to be an improvement over that. Using 
>>>that word for a subdirectory seems like the opposite of progress.
>>> 
>>>[snip]
>> 
>> IMHO, "directory" was a poor choice back in the CLI/DOS days of
>> computing, but it's all we had and everyone quickly got used to it. 
> 
> Ridiculous, and I will fight you to the death to defend 'directory', 
> which includes 'subdirectory'.
> 
>> With
>> the advent of GUIs, "directory" became completely inadequate. "Folder"
>> is obviously a much better term, especially compared to the obsolete
>> "directory". Some day, an even better term may well come along.
> 
> No.  A directory is a concept and might be anything.  A folder is 
> obviously a tangible thing which we all know is made of paper or light 
> cardboard and is actually a FILE containing MORE PAPER.
> 
> I'd go with 'cabinet' instead of 'directory' if you insist, but 'folder' 
> is just out of the question.
> 
> Words MEAN SOMETHING, for chrissake :-(

Indeed. A folder can contain something. A directory points to or
 contains _information_about_ something. Folder is a better
 analogy IMO. 

OTOH (cardboard) folders rarely contain other folders whereas
 directories (books) often point to other directories. So a
 'sub-folder' is a conceptual jump.

Personally, I think directories but talk folders, otherwise
 ordinary Windows folk don't know what I mean.
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

#13079

Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote at 17:15 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:29:42 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I have an extensive folder system (GOD I hate calling them folders!) on
>> my computer, so none is needed at the website.  The phone etc. email is
>> only used occasionally for current messages with no need for sorting,
>> storage etc.
>
> I think of a "folder" as a piece of light cardboard wrapped around papers, 
> that you have to be very careful with or you get a disorganized mess on 
> the floor. Computers are supposed to be an improvement over that. Using 
> that word for a subdirectory seems like the opposite of progress.
>  
> [snip]


I use them interchangably.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#13013

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> The plan for Brave is to be an ad network; a middleman
> between advertisers and websites

Of course, Mozilla would never do any such thing, right?  Oh wait, they
added Website Advertising Preferences aka PPA (Privacy-Preserving
Attribution) as their scheme to help advertisers acquire statistics on
the effectiveness of their ad campaigns.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/article/reimagining-the-ad-ecosystem-balancing-privacy-and-relevance/

If enabled, the hopefully anonymized user data gets collected at Anonym
where it then gets sent to the advertisers.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/article/a-privacy-first-solution-that-meets-advertisers-needs/

Mozilla is also trying to help advertisers survive, so the Web survives.
All those resources cost money.  If Mozilla loses their $510M bribe from
Google, this project could languish and die.  Of course, Mozilla could
charge the advertisers for enrollment at Anonym.  Whoa, then you'd have
to be claiming Mozilla is just like Brave, and making money at it.  With
the Google revenue influx, Mozilla will have to make some hard financial
decisions of what of them survives.

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

#12969

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:

>  [snip]
> Firefox is not the fastest web browser on the desktop PC.  It (Fenix) is
> painfully slow on Android.  While Firefox Android supports extensions,
> like uBlock Origin, it can be a pain to use not only because it is slow,
> but also because it doesn't support some web doc features of other web
> browsers.  Firefox is very poor at rendering gradients, for example, and
> for many other web standards.
> [snip]

FWIW I don't find Fenix slow, and certainly not painfully slow, on
 this 5 yo 64GB tablet (GT S6 Lite). Perhaps it depends on how you
 use it: I never have more than 3 or 4 tabs open, or 3 or 3 apps
 'open', for example. Also on what sites you frequent: I've not
 noticed that gradients are poorly rendered. Perhaps if I used Art
 UK a lot ...

Is Chrome faster on Android? I've no idea, I never use it. 

Tech sites have to compare, and speed is something they can
 measure. It's not important - or not to me.
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

#12971

Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:
> 
>>  [snip]
>> Firefox is not the fastest web browser on the desktop PC.  It (Fenix) is
>> painfully slow on Android.  While Firefox Android supports extensions,
>> like uBlock Origin, it can be a pain to use not only because it is slow,
>> but also because it doesn't support some web doc features of other web
>> browsers.  Firefox is very poor at rendering gradients, for example, and
>> for many other web standards.
>> [snip]
> 
> FWIW I don't find Fenix slow, and certainly not painfully slow, on
>  this 5 yo 64GB tablet (GT S6 Lite). Perhaps it depends on how you
>  use it: I never have more than 3 or 4 tabs open, or 3 or 3 apps
>  'open', for example. Also on what sites you frequent: I've not
>  noticed that gradients are poorly rendered. Perhaps if I used Art
>  UK a lot ...
> 
> Is Chrome faster on Android? I've no idea, I never use it. 
> 
> Tech sites have to compare, and speed is something they can
>  measure. It's not important - or not to me.

I rarely go beyond 4 tabs (which are shown as tiles instead of tabs).  I
enabled the Quit option in its menu.  Whether on desktop or phone, I
always exit the web browser when I'm down with it.  I do not want it
continuing to run in the background.  I configured both desktop and
Android Firefoxes to purge all their locally cached data on exit.  I
have uBlock Origin (uBO) added to both desktop and Android Firefoxes.
On Android, that is the only add-on installed into Firefox Mobile.  On
desktop (Windows), I uBO installed along with Bitwarden, Enhancer for
Youtube, Save Page WE and Print Edit WE.  But on Android, it's just
uBlock Origin.

I was going to use Bitwarden add-on in Firefox Android, but it crashes.
Using Bitwarden as an Android app, and to drill into its vault to find
an entry for the current web site, and having to copy usernames and
passwords from Bitwarden to paste into web page login fields is just too
clumsy.  I'd just as soon use Microsoft OneNote on both desktop and
Android with encryption to get at my logins across platforms since I'd
be doing the same manual copy/paste that way.  

Firefox's password manager works okay on web pages that contain the
login fields; i.e., Firefox works with login fields on page load.  The
fields must be defined in the web page that gets loaded for login.  Too
many sites are now using Javascript to create the fields AFTER the page
load, and that is too late for Firefox's password manager.  For Firefox
Desktop, Bitwarden (add-on) has far less trouble auto-filling the login
fields.  When both Firefox and Bitwarden cannot fill the login fields, I
can click on the Bitwarden toolbar icon, and click Fill.  Not as
convenient as auto-fill, but a click on a toolbar button and click on
Fill is a lot easier than drilling into Bitwarden's vault to
individually copy and paste the username, and then again the password.
I cannot use Bitwarden as an add-on in Firefox Android, because
Bitwarden crashes (stops) Firefox Android.  I tried their separate
Android app, but that has me copying/pasting vault entries twice (once
for username, and again for password) into the login fields in Firefox
Android.  As I said, I can do that using OneNote, so no point in
installing Bitwarden's Android app.  Crashing Firefox Android is a known
problem with Bitwarden, and their solution is manual copy/pasting from
their app.  No thanks.

I like desktop and Android Firefox can sync with each other (although
bookmarks are not merged, but copied over into a subfolder from the
other host).  Rather than use Bitwarden or OneNote on Android, I can go
into Firefox's password manager to copy/paste the username and password
from there.  That's just a tad more convenient than using OneNote,
especially since Firefox already has the synced login data whereas I
would have to store them in the encrypted sections in OneNote.

I've not noticed uBO slows down Firefox on Windows or Android.
Disabling all add-ons does not speed up Firefox.  When I use Firefox
Android, just /starting/ to load a page is slow.  There is a delay
before Firefox Android even seems to get the web page, or to start
rendering it.  Once the page starts getting rendered, it is obvious in
taking longer to retrieve resources external to the web doc, like
images, or 3rd-party content (since many sites used CDNs to offline
their content to also reduce their bandwidth).  Firefox Android being
slow is a common complaint.  It's not just me.  If it weren't for
Firefox Sync between platforms to get my passwords, bookmarks, and
[some] settings the same in Firefox Desktop and Firefox Android (I do
not sync tabs, history, addresses which I don't store in Firefox anyway,
and payment methods which I also don't store in Firefox), I wouldn't
bother with Firefox Android.

At home, the desktop uses Ethernet cable to the modem.  For the phone
when at home, it is connected to the 5 Ghz channel on the modem.  When
travelling, the phone can, at best, use 4G (my old phone doesn't have
5G).  However, even at phone with both desktop and phone connected to
the modem, and Firefox Android is still much slower than Firefox
Desktop.  So much so that I'll leave the phone to go to a desktop to do
my web browsing there.

When I use the Chrome web browser on my phone, it's night and day
compared to using Firefox on my phone.  And that's when opening the
first tab in Firefox Android (remember I don't leave it running, and I
have it purge everything on exit, so there are no old tabs waiting when
I load Firefox, and no huge history to load).  As with Firefox Desktop,
I have Firefox Android configured to open to about:blank, not some
stupid "home page" with a bunch of links to web sites that results in
pre-fetching content that I don't want.  While I lose privacy using
Chrome, and if a desktop isn't readily available, I'll often use Chrome
instead of Firefox on my phone.  With Firefox it's wait wait wait.  With
Chrome, the page starts painting immediately.  So the phones data
connection is more than fast enough to make web browsing doable on my
phone, but when using Chrome, not with Firefox.

I've seen other users complaining about how slow is Firefox Android, and
that Chrome is much faster.  Even those using MS Edge on Android find it
much faster, so that's why I'll probably test Brave on both my desktop
and Android phone.  If Chrome is much faster than Firefox, and since
Brave tests out faster than Chrome, then why should I stick with a sloth
for a web browser?  Even web-centric apps communicate and update faster
than Firefox.  It's not a problem with the phone or with the data
connection speed.  The problem is with Firefox Android.

Since Fenix went into maintenance mode 2 years ago, nothing is going to
get fixed in it regardless its slowness.  Then add Mozilla considers its
Android users as boobs, because we cannot be trusted to use
about:config.  In Firefox Desktop, for example, I can go into
about:config to set network.IDN_show_punycode = true to prevent liars
from presenting lookalike domain name by using UTF-8 encoding.  Well,
there's no about:config in Fenix, so no way to get Firefox Mobile to
display punycode to make it very clear just to where a hyperlink points.

https://www.link-assistant.com/seo-wiki/punycode/#Examples3

Copy the first example for møllerriis.dk (which has UTF-8 characters),
and paste the UTF-8 string into the address bar of Firefox Desktop (with
the punycode setting to True).  You'll see the punycode version when you
[attempt to] visit that web site.  Now go to the same web page in
Firefox Android, and copy the møllerriis.dk string to then paste into
the address bar.  Do you see the punycode version?  Nope, you see the
UTF-8 version.  UTF-8 encoding for lookalike domains is a favorite
scheme by scammers to make mislead users to a fake web site.  Even Apple
got nailed by this as well as many other huge entities on the Web.

https://www.jamf.com/blog/punycode-attacks/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack

I don't remember Chrome (Desktop or Android) lets you see the punycode
version of a UTF-8 encoded IDN (International Domain Name) URL.  MS Edge
Desktop doesn't, either.  Firefox Desktop does (when configured for it),
but Firefox Android does not (because there is no about:config to change
the setting).  From what I've read, Brave shows punycode on desktop and
mobile, but I would have to test, and make sure it was either the
default or a configurable setting to always show punycode, and not some
command-line argument.  I think unGoogle Chromium does, too.  Brave gets
many fixes from unGoogle Chromium.  I've seen Brave users ask that both
the IDN and punycode version of a URL be shown for full fidelity.

Firefox Android (Fenix) is a poor cousin of Firefox Desktop, is too slow
for many users, lets add-ons crash it, and users are considered too
stupid to trust with access to about:config.  If it weren't for add-on
support, so I can add uBlock Origin, along with Firefox Sync, I would
not bother with Firefox Android (Fenix).  I've spent a lot of time to
research and test how to harden Firefox Desktop only to find I have to
use an inane crippled version on Android.  Oh, did I mention it's slow?

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

#12972

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:

> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
> 
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> Wrote in message:
>> 
>>>  [snip]
>>> Firefox is not the fastest web browser on the desktop PC.  It (Fenix) is
>>> painfully slow on Android.  While Firefox Android supports extensions,
>>> like uBlock Origin, it can be a pain to use not only because it is slow,
>>> but also because it doesn't support some web doc features of other web
>>> browsers.  Firefox is very poor at rendering gradients, for example, and
>>> for many other web standards.
>>> [snip]
>> 
>> FWIW I don't find Fenix slow, and certainly not painfully slow, on
>>  this 5 yo 64GB tablet (GT S6 Lite). Perhaps it depends on how you
>>  use it: I never have more than 3 or 4 tabs open, or 3 or 3 apps
>>  'open', for example. Also on what sites you frequent: I've not
>>  noticed that gradients are poorly rendered. Perhaps if I used Art
>>  UK a lot ...
>> 
>> Is Chrome faster on Android? I've no idea, I never use it. 
>> 
>> Tech sites have to compare, and speed is something they can
>>  measure. It's not important - or not to me.
> 
> [snip]
> When I use the Chrome web browser on my phone, it's night and day
> compared to using Firefox on my phone.  And that's when opening the
> first tab in Firefox Android (remember I don't leave it running, and I
> have it purge everything on exit, so there are no old tabs waiting when
> I load Firefox, and no huge history to load).  
>[snip]

Yes, it's slow to start, to open the first tab. I see that only
 when I turn the device on in the morning. Firefox is usually the
 first app I load and it and K9 are the only apps I leave running
 all the time. It will often have all tabs closed, or just the
 last one open.

That would explain your 'painfully slow' experience. 
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web