Recent Posts

1776

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 21, 2011, 06:17 AM »

It all depends on the actual website, I presume. The more Javascript is used, the better Firefox performs than Chrome. (And these days, almost everything is Javascript. Dumbass web "designers".)

1777

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 20, 2011, 07:04 PM »

It's Fx, not FF ("Fire Fox"?!). And: Confirmed? By whom? Studies? Want counter-studies?

1778

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 20, 2011, 12:51 PM »

I see. Weird results.

1779

Living Room / Re: The Boozernet...

« Last post by Tuxman on September 20, 2011, 10:21 AM »

That's why. 

1780

Living Room / Re: The Boozernet...

« Last post by Tuxman on September 20, 2011, 09:35 AM »

I'm never sober when posting here!

1781

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 20, 2011, 09:32 AM »

Tuxman, I'm not sure your assertions match tested reality:
http://www.tomshardw...d-html5,3013-16.html

-JavaJones (September 19, 2011, 10:52 PM)

Worthless without version numbers. Firefox 3 was slow as hell, Firefox 6 is blazing fast. You see?

1782

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 17, 2011, 09:39 PM »

It "feels" faster because everyone implies that.

1783

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 17, 2011, 12:36 PM »

It is entirely independent of the website that Firefox is faster, unless Google introduced some "let's slow down foreign browsers" technology.

1784

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 17, 2011, 11:08 AM »

Chrome is not faster than Firefox. It was, years ago...

1785

Living Room / Re: Portal Free on steam until 20th September

« Last post by Tuxman on September 17, 2011, 11:01 AM »

Hmm, first time I played Portal. Lost in level 15. Sigh... not my kind of games.

1786

General Software Discussion / Re: Google+ Extensions thread

« Last post by Tuxman on September 16, 2011, 03:42 PM »

I wonder which multi-network client will implement the API first: Yoono or Tweetdeck?

1787

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 04, 2011, 01:30 PM »

Even an alpha 0.01 is "out". 

1788

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 04, 2011, 11:46 AM »

Good software is never "final"!

1789

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 04, 2011, 11:10 AM »

Darwin is open source, it is just Aqua that is not. Anyway, I really wonder what should be so "great" about a BSD/Mach hybrid bastard of a kernel, given that OSX is, according to Secunia, more insecure than Windows 7.

1790

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 02, 2011, 12:35 PM »

The Mac crowdies are bastards.

1791

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 02, 2011, 11:10 AM »

Disrupters!

1792

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 02, 2011, 10:40 AM »

Awwww, I was so positive that I could initiate a serious flame-war here in this Windows users board!!11

1793

General Software Discussion / Re: Linux kernel.org hacked

« Last post by Tuxman on September 02, 2011, 05:45 AM »

That said, the attacker's rootkit was able to gain root priviledges via an (obviously) yet unknown priviledge escalation exploit, so the Linux kernel most likely has a critical bug which is actively exploited, so it does not matter if the Git repository was modified or not.

I'm so happy that I use the secure Windows instead of the exploitable Linux stuff. 

1794

General Software Discussion / Re: sublime text: some innovative text editor!

« Last post by Tuxman on September 01, 2011, 01:22 PM »

The blog entry might be an indicator.

Anyway, here is the original posting:
http://www.sublimete...c.php?p=13608#p13608

1795

General Software Discussion / Re: sublime text: some innovative text editor!

« Last post by Tuxman on September 01, 2011, 11:07 AM »

I got that impression from Jon who told me in the forums that build 2111 is the "release" version of build 2110 as a reply to my question of this is the "final version" now.

1796

General Software Discussion / Re: sublime text: some innovative text editor!

« Last post by Tuxman on August 31, 2011, 06:08 PM »

BTW: ST2 is "final".

1797

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

« Last post by Tuxman on August 16, 2011, 12:39 PM »

It was kind of sarcastic, related to our "every camera has its own format" thingy. Anyway: Yep, open standards are the best standards. The problem with Adobe or Google or whoseever standards is that they might involve incompatibility with other software than the own. It took a while to have PDF available in third-party software, for example.

1798

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

« Last post by Tuxman on August 16, 2011, 12:30 PM »

Ah, I see. Standards, who needs them?

1799

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

« Last post by Tuxman on August 16, 2011, 12:18 PM »

Never heard of .DNG files.

1800

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: SageThumbs - Thumbnails all over the Windows

« Last post by Tuxman on August 15, 2011, 09:18 PM »

Looking forward to your impressions then!