Re: NetSurf progress

[Peter Young]

On 3 Nov 2015  Dave Higton  wrote:

[snip]

> In short, I feel very much encouraged by recent progress, and I
> hope you all do too!

This user (and occasional bug reporter) is very encouraged too, and 
also very grateful.

Best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter Young (zfc Os) and family
Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52, England
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
pnyo...@ormail.co.uk

Re: NetSurf progress

[Harriet Bazley]

On 3 Nov 2015 as I do recall,
  Dave Higton  wrote:

[snip]

> you must have downloaded and tried numerous development (CI) builds.  How
> many have given you trouble?
>
I only normally download a random development build when I want to report a
bug (to check that it's still present in the current version).

Hard to tell how many of those have introduced bugs that weren't previously
present!   The (apparently new?) non-scrolling bug is the one that caused
the most serious usability issues.

I don't think I've been unlucky enough to download a version of Netsurf that
didn't actually run - now that the majority of the lock-up/superslow
rendering problems seem to have been located and fixed, I'm considering
downloading a newer version of Netsurf on this (e-mail hosting) machine,
which I have so far avoided doing because my mother, who also uses it,
simply can't cope with switching Javascript off again to access sites that
don't work with JS on by default.

There's still the issue (for her) of sites that provide a working non-JS
alternative but where you don't get to access this when Netsurf claims to
support Javascript then doesn't actually submit the form when you click on
the button, etc

-- 
Harriet Bazley ==  Loyaulte me lie ==

Positive: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.

Re: NetSurf progress

[Harriet Bazley]

On 3 Nov 2015 as I do recall,
  Dave Higton  wrote:

[snip]


> In short, I feel very much encouraged by recent progress, and I
> hope you all do too!
>
I've been very impressed by the speed with which the last few issues I've
reported have been fixed.

-- 
Harriet Bazley ==  Loyaulte me lie ==

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Re: NetSurf progress

[george greenfield]

In message 
  Dave Higton  wrote:

> In message 
>   Harriet Bazley  wrote:
> 
>>On 3 Nov 2015 as I do recall,
>>  Dave Higton  wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>> In short, I feel very much encouraged by recent progress, and I
>>> hope you all do too!
>>>
>>I've been very impressed by the speed with which the last few issues I've
>>reported have been fixed.
> 
> Thanks for speaking up, Harriet.  The developers really are trying!
> 
> Perhaps your posting will add weight to my pleas for more testing.
> 
> Another thing: you must have downloaded and tried numerous development
> (CI) builds.  How many have given you trouble?
> 
IME the development builds are pretty stable. I generally update NS 
every couple of weeks or so and have been doing so since the CI series 
started: I could probably count the troublesome versions on the 
fingers of one hand. I keep a copy of the last stable release in any 
case, and can revert to that in the (rare) event of problems. Good to 
see development is proceeding energetically: the platform doesn't have 
too many alternatives to NetSurf. I've used Peter Naulls' Firefox port 
in the past, and the Otter port fairly intensively over the past 3 
weeks and, while the latter is promising, it is not yet responsive 
enough for day-in, day-out use on a low-powered computer such as a Pi 
or Iyonix, IMO, and I imagine a considerable amount of work would be 
required to make it so. We really do need NetSurf!


-- 
George

Re: NetSurf progress

[lists]

In article <41035cf02c7.007bd...@davehigton.me.uk>,
   Dave Higton  wrote:

> In short, I feel very much encouraged by recent progress, and I
> hope you all do too!

Yes. Thank you, all of you, fror your efforts.

-- 
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

Re: NetSurf progress

[Daniel Silverstone]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 22:42:09 +, Harriet Bazley wrote:
> There's still the issue (for her) of sites that provide a working non-JS
> alternative but where you don't get to access this when Netsurf claims to
> support Javascript then doesn't actually submit the form when you click on
> the button, etc

I can appreciate this is a pain.  Once we have events working in the new JS
implementation well enough that we feel 3.4 could come out; we're going to
switch the "JS always on at startup" back off, so that users have control once
more.

Until then, keeping a couple of different verisons around is probably best.  I
would never give a CI build of software to my mum and not expect problems --
she's a bug magnet :-)

D.

-- 
Daniel Silverstone   http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
PGP mail accepted and encouraged.Key Id: 3CCE BABE 206C 3B69