Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com : Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I use Epiphany because they switched to Webkit. On Ubuntu Lucid, it's working very well, I even use it to play youtube HTML5 videos. -- Architecte Informatique chez Blueline/Gulfsat: Administration Systeme, Recherche Developpement +261 34 29 155 34 / +261 33 11 207 36 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100510071542.542b0...@pbmiha.malagasy.com
[update] Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 22:32 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:25:11 -0400 (EDT), Alan Ianson wrote: I've noticed the same things. I've stuck with epiphany because it worked so well for so long but there are times recently when I need to use iceweasel. I think it's the switch from the gecko backend to webkit that broke a lot of things that used to work well. I keep hoping that these problems can be resolved but time will tell. I use unstable and downloading works fine but java apps that use the plugin still don't work. That's not good news. Which plugin? The Sun non-free one? There is one site that I used to use a lot that requires that to work. (It's a stock analysis site.) I haven't been in the market lately, but I expect to be active again at some point. And when I do want to use it, I want it to work! Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. After some updates pogo.com is working again with sun-java6-jre. I'm going to try openjdk again and see how it goes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1272654535.7158.2.ca...@debian.ok.shawcable.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-19 21:47:45 -0500, Mark Allums wrote: Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Webkit-gtk is broken. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34063 I haven't heard that this bug would be fixed in webkit 2.0. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100422110341.gb7...@prunille.vinc17.org
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-21 15:43:51 -0400, Andrew Malcolmson wrote: To the OP: to workaround the save file bug you're getting, you could right click on the file, do 'copy link address', then on the command line hit Shift+Insert to paste the URL as the argument to wget. I do all my file downloads that way. What about those that require authentication? -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100422110529.gc7...@prunille.vinc17.org
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:43:51 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: To the OP: to workaround the save file bug you're getting, you could right click on the file, do 'copy link address', then on the command line hit Shift+Insert to paste the URL as the argument to wget. I do all my file downloads that way. It's a kludge, but it works. But that doesn't fix my inability to reply to e-mails using my ISP's webmail client. I do that many times a day; and if it doesn't work, the browser is useless to me. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1004626587.249550.1271982279243.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:51:47 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Powell wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). Well, I could be hallucinating, but FYI I tested this by comparing the two Epiphany versions side by side. Version 2.29 was running in a Sid chroot (schroot -p). The new version looked brighter and a wee bit clearer. I first noticed this improvement on another computer I'd just upgraded to Squeeze. However, maybe the difference is something to do with X.org? Even if there is a measurable difference in image brightness or sharpness, it's a moot point for me. If I can't download files or reply to e-mails, the Squeeze version is useless to me. I'll check things out again once the Sid version migrates to Squeeze. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1905300792.199120.1271856145572.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Kevin Ross ke...@familyross.net wrote: [snip] Well, I could be hallucinating, but FYI I tested this by comparing the two Epiphany versions side by side. Version 2.29 was running in a Sid chroot (schroot -p). The new version looked brighter and a wee bit clearer. I first noticed this improvement on another computer I'd just upgraded to Squeeze. However, maybe the difference is something to do with X.org? Could it be the font antialiasing settings were different between the two environments? I realized after I sent my last post that it couldn't be due to X server settings. The Squeeze epiphany runs from the filesystem in the chroot but it is displayed using the same X instance as is my regular Lenny desktop. Anyway ... To the OP: to workaround the save file bug you're getting, you could right click on the file, do 'copy link address', then on the command line hit Shift+Insert to paste the URL as the argument to wget. I do all my file downloads that way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/q2zae6dd7d31004211243ocabe05d1m6ed0634dcb5cd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 03:21:52 Ron Johnson wrote: Why do women buy new clothes every year when their existing clothes are completely functional? A lot of us don't. And I don't fix things that aren't broken either. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004201424.41039.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-20 08:24, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 20 April 2010 03:21:52 Ron Johnson wrote: Why do women buy new clothes every year when their existing clothes are completely functional? A lot of us don't. And I don't fix things that aren't broken either. (I _knew_ I'd get an email or two like this...) Neither do *all* geeks consistently and constantly buy new kit. HOWEVER... since enough women and geeks *do* do what I suggest, they fuel two thriving multi-multi-billion dollar industries. So, it's patently obvious that these two generalizations fit the populations to which they were applied. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcdae8f.9010...@cox.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-20 08:24, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 20 April 2010 03:21:52 Ron Johnson wrote: Why do women buy new clothes every year when their existing clothes are completely functional? A lot of us don't. And I don't fix things that aren't broken either. (I _knew_ I'd get an email or two like this...) Neither do *all* geeks consistently and constantly buy new kit. HOWEVER... since enough women and geeks *do* do what I suggest, they fuel two thriving multi-multi-billion dollar industries. So, it's patently obvious that these two generalizations fit the populations to which they were applied. No doubt you will claim that the exception proves the rule, and you may be right. But I am definitely a geek. I got a new laptop for my birthday a few days ago. My wife, sons, siblings, inlaws, etc. all chipped in for it because I was too cheap to buy one for myself. The only reason that I asked for one for my birthday was because my old laptop, which was new in 1998, has a hard drive (4G) which I have almost outgrown. By the time I install a full-blown Linux desktop environment on it, there's not much room left for user files. Otherwise, I would have been content to continue running my 12-year-old 266 MHz Pentium II with 416M of RAM, 2M of video RAM, and no 3D graphics acceleration. On the other end of the spectrum, Epiphany's motto seems to be, If it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is! -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1391349987.168491.1271772706833.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 4/19/2010 11:24 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-19 21:47, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Beyond crude process separation, what are it's benefits over v1? I don't know. I read the blurb (Slashdot) but was too disinterested to read the article. Saw similar blurbs in about six other places. *Somebody's* excited. MAA (It must be good, it's 2.0!) Let me amend: I forget. I knew the answer to your question when I read it in the blurb, but I'm no longer young, and the reasons for 2.0 have escaped me. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcdcb16.5020...@allums.com
Re: Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 2010-04-20 10:41, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 11:24 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-19 21:47, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Beyond crude process separation, what are it's benefits over v1? I don't know. I read the blurb (Slashdot) but was too disinterested to read the article. Saw similar blurbs in about six other places. *Somebody's* excited. MAA (It must be good, it's 2.0!) Let me amend: I forget. I knew the answer to your question when I read it in the blurb, but I'm no longer young, and the reasons for 2.0 have escaped me. Even though I'm an official Grumpy Old Man, the know the reasons for 2.0. It's just that now I know that most of them are screaming piles of horse manure. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bce1a23.5020...@cox.net
Re: Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 4/20/2010 4:18 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-20 10:41, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 11:24 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-19 21:47, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Beyond crude process separation, what are it's benefits over v1? I don't know. I read the blurb (Slashdot) but was too disinterested to read the article. Saw similar blurbs in about six other places. *Somebody's* excited. MAA (It must be good, it's 2.0!) Let me amend: I forget. I knew the answer to your question when I read it in the blurb, but I'm no longer young, and the reasons for 2.0 have escaped me. Even though I'm an official Grumpy Old Man, the know the reasons for 2.0. It's just that now I know that most of them are screaming piles of horse manure. That won't stop them from moving to it. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bce26b5.1000...@allums.com
Re: Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 2010-04-20 17:12, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/20/2010 4:18 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] Even though I'm an official Grumpy Old Man, the know the reasons for 2.0. It's just that now I know that most of them are screaming piles of horse manure. That won't stop them from moving to it. Because there will always be Eager Young Geeks who think they know better. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bce2ea7.7060...@cox.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). Well, I could be hallucinating, but FYI I tested this by comparing the two Epiphany versions side by side. Version 2.29 was running in a Sid chroot (schroot -p). The new version looked brighter and a wee bit clearer. I first noticed this improvement on another computer I'd just upgraded to Squeeze. However, maybe the difference is something to do with X.org? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/h2mae6dd7d31004201651q86f93ceq3b03d972803e6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1216380444.155482.1271724785630.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/x2xae6dd7d31004191801sc0df1854ud3e83e7984ae2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-19 19:53, Stephen Powell wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. Apple's reason: allowed easier development than other technologies by virtue of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed and standards compliant. I'm betting they though to themselves, If it's good enough for Apple, it's good enough for us... As for problems in Webkit, I'd say that *one* of the reasons why gecko is so bloated is all of the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of html, js, flash, etc, etc that have built up in the code over the years. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd026e.2030...@cox.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-19 19:53, Stephen Powell wrote: Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. Apple's reason: allowed easier development than other technologies by virtue of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed and standards compliant. I'm betting they though to themselves, If it's good enough for Apple, it's good enough for us... As for problems in Webkit, I'd say that *one* of the reasons why gecko is so bloated is all of the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of html, js, flash, etc, etc that have built up in the code over the years. Hmm. Well, if they were going to design a brand new browser from scratch today, you make a good case for webkit. But they already had a browser that was working well with gecko. Why switch now? It's a lot of pain for very little gain, it seems to me. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2017422646.157145.1271727625361.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1137023388.158078.1271728834477.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-19 20:40, Stephen Powell wrote: [snip] Hmm. Well, if they were going to design a brand new browser from scratch today, you make a good case for webkit. But they already had a browser that was working well with gecko. Why switch now? It's a lot of pain for very little gain, it seems to me. Why do women buy new clothes every year when their existing clothes are completely functional? Why do geeks buy new kit when their exiting kit is still usable? -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd0fc0.3040...@cox.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 4/19/2010 9:00 PM, Stephen Powell wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). One word: Chrome. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd1581.8080...@allums.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 4/19/2010 7:53 PM, Stephen Powell wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd15d1.9070...@allums.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 4/19/2010 9:46 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 4/19/2010 9:00 PM, Stephen Powell wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). One word: Chrome. Sorry. I had an aneurysm, and didn't say what I meant, what with all the blood distracting me, and everything. Disregard. Never mind, carry on... MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd177c.6040...@allums.com
Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 2010-04-19 21:47, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Beyond crude process separation, what are it's benefits over v1? -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd1d63.8080...@cox.net
Re: Webkit2 (was Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse)
On 4/19/2010 10:20 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-04-19 21:47, Mark Allums wrote: [snip] Webkit 2.0 is imminent. Perhaps they are considering moving to it. According to various sources, it is the bee's knees. Beyond crude process separation, what are it's benefits over v1? I don't know. I read the blurb (Slashdot) but was too disinterested to read the article. Saw similar blurbs in about six other places. *Somebody's* excited. MAA (It must be good, it's 2.0!) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bcd2c79.90...@allums.com
Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
I am continuing to suffer the on-going de-volution of the once-decent epiphany browser under Debian Squeeze. First they broke file downloading. They still haven't fixed that. I'll bet it's been six months or more. Now I can't reply to any e-mails using the Wow basic webmail client. I click on the Reply button, the mail compose screen appears for a fraction of a second, then I get this error screen. The problem does not occur with iceweasel. The problem is very recent. It broke with a recent aptitude update;aptitude full-upgrade sequence. I suppose I could report a bug, but I'm not about to give them my password so they can logon as me to test it! I'm going back to iceweasel again. I kept using epiphany so I would know when the file download feature got fixed. Instead they broke something else. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/17634273.96763.1271524660328.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
You might wanna take a look at Midori, which is also webkit-based. So far, I tend to like it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bc9f1b0.9080...@gmail.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 13:17:40 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: I am continuing to suffer the on-going de-volution of the once-decent epiphany browser under Debian Squeeze. First they broke file downloading. They still haven't fixed that. I'll bet it's been six months or more. They probably haven't fixed it since it hasn't been reported as a bug. Either: * Say nothing. * Rant in an unproductive fashion, without sufficient details to come to any conclusion. * Report a bug. Anything else is a waste of your time, and ours. (e.g. File downloads are broken? Not for me. But with so few details people will either ignore you, suspect you're trolling, or blame it on user-error.) Happily it seems that you're content using Iceweasel, so pragmatically you should continue to do that... Steve -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100417183138.ga10...@steve.org.uk
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:31:38 +0100 Steve Kemp s...@debian.org wrote: On Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 13:17:40 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: I am continuing to suffer the on-going de-volution of the once-decent epiphany browser under Debian Squeeze. First they broke file downloading. They still haven't fixed that. I'll bet it's been six months or more. They probably haven't fixed it since it hasn't been reported as a bug. Is it this one ? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577053 - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLyfpQAAoJEMEDyLTvrVhj1AkIAIdD0yRlysDNozcyAJUbULrZ wjUJwm3nIKdj4sM0+y9CfV396JaTuYf4VOMGafxP+dR9KrYkzAQnDbfX/vTrH330 V/cMnBSg69q8Mn33nwkL28SlHiy7d5ArsVEBTUarsVI4J/bF1qsbzZenuqUALHPh fQUaiTTyq6+vAZZfa23UnX8h9bwckd8WHNFYrIu0VhxdPyBE2GawnTo9CZg5Nc0R 7N1zwjl6JReK5gqPvCht8HJraKk4w4K+9+wVVAuQIYcuJB8VLNeztrFqpxilRLTy EfvA849vsueYsO+CQBnCoI8RK1bv+kMs9oQ2mUKUDbnCB80/7I1xSXzAOAJZISA= =61CB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100417141336.70752e9e.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:31:38 -0400 (EDT), Steve Kemp wrote: They probably haven't fixed it since it hasn't been reported as a bug. As for the download problem, I didn't report a bug because someone else got there first: Debian bug report number 563056. I just checked back and it has been marked resolved, but apparently that version has not yet migrated to Squeeze, which is what I am running. As for the reply bug, I just noticed it today; and no, I haven't reported a bug yet. I'm not sure I'm going to. I already said why. I'm not going to give out my password. And unless the package maintainer happens to have a Wow e-mail account, which is unlikely, they won't be able to reproduce the problem. And then some wise guy like you will say, Well, Mr. Powell, if we can't reproduce the problem, how do you expect us to fix it? I do not hesitate to report bugs. If you don't believe me, search the bug database for my e-mail id. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/233932390.98164.1271530815277.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 15:00:15 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: They probably haven't fixed it since it hasn't been reported as a bug. As for the download problem, I didn't report a bug because someone else got there first: Debian bug report number 563056. Your message initially didn't have that link; so thanks for providing it. I think I over-reacted because I'm used to seeing people give lists of alleged problems in software, but without enough details to allow anybody else to confirm them, or investigate. Sometimes you'll get lucky and somebody else will report it; but posting to the users mailing list thing like: * I use software XX but it is buggy and now I use something else Just feels like a random rant, not the start of a useful or productive discussion. (Which is pretty much what you did.) As for the reply bug, I just noticed it today; and no, I haven't reported a bug yet. I'm not sure I'm going to. I already said why. Indeed. Still if it affects one site it probably affects others, unless it is caused by a particularly malformed HTML/javascript/whatever that site uses behind the scenes. On that basis its useful to report, if only so that other users of that particular site can see it. Even without that perhaps saving the page, and associated media to your local machine might still trigger it. If that is the case you can trim down the page(s) a lot and see if you can find out what causes it yourself. (Assuming you're familiar with HTML so on.) Steve -- Debian GNU/Linux System Administration http://www.debian-administration.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100417201651.ga17...@steve.org.uk
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 13:17 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: I am continuing to suffer the on-going de-volution of the once-decent epiphany browser under Debian Squeeze. First they broke file downloading. They still haven't fixed that. I'll bet it's been six months or more. Now I can't reply to any e-mails using the Wow basic webmail client. I click on the Reply button, the mail compose screen appears for a fraction of a second, then I get this error screen. The problem does not occur with iceweasel. The problem is very recent. It broke with a recent aptitude update;aptitude full-upgrade sequence. I suppose I could report a bug, but I'm not about to give them my password so they can logon as me to test it! I'm going back to iceweasel again. I kept using epiphany so I would know when the file download feature got fixed. Instead they broke something else. I've noticed the same things. I've stuck with epiphany because it worked so well for so long but there are times recently when I need to use iceweasel. I think it's the switch from the gecko backend to webkit that broke a lot of things that used to work well. I keep hoping that these problems can be resolved but time will tell. I use unstable and downloading works fine but java apps that use the plugin still don't work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1271532311.13144.4.ca...@debian.ok.shawcable.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:16:51 -0400 (EDT), Steve Kemp wrote: I think I over-reacted because I'm used to seeing people give lists of alleged problems in software, but without enough details to allow anybody else to confirm them, or investigate. Sometimes you'll get lucky and somebody else will report it; but posting to the users mailing list thing like: * I use software XX but it is buggy and now I use something else Just feels like a random rant, not the start of a useful or productive discussion. (Which is pretty much what you did.) I see your point. I'll try to give more details next time. Stephen Powell wrote: As for the reply bug, I just noticed it today; and no, I haven't reported a bug yet. I'm not sure I'm going to. I already said why. Indeed. Still if it affects one site it probably affects others, unless it is caused by a particularly malformed HTML/javascript/whatever that site uses behind the scenes. On that basis its useful to report, if only so that other users of that particular site can see it. Even without that perhaps saving the page, and associated media to your local machine might still trigger it. If that is the case you can trim down the page(s) a lot and see if you can find out what causes it yourself. (Assuming you're familiar with HTML so on.) OK, I'll tell you what. Since I know that a newer version which fixes at least one bug I'm experiencing is waiting in the wings in Sid, and since Squeeze hasn't frozen yet, I'll wait until the new version migrates to Squeeze. (Let's hope that Squeeze doesn't freeze first.) And then I'll try again. And if I still get the same error, I'll at least *try* to come up with a test case. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/712849440.105092.1271557302610.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:25:11 -0400 (EDT), Alan Ianson wrote: I've noticed the same things. I've stuck with epiphany because it worked so well for so long but there are times recently when I need to use iceweasel. I think it's the switch from the gecko backend to webkit that broke a lot of things that used to work well. I keep hoping that these problems can be resolved but time will tell. I use unstable and downloading works fine but java apps that use the plugin still don't work. That's not good news. Which plugin? The Sun non-free one? There is one site that I used to use a lot that requires that to work. (It's a stock analysis site.) I haven't been in the market lately, but I expect to be active again at some point. And when I do want to use it, I want it to work! Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1294176377.105221.1271557958341.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: [snip] Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bca7591.1050...@cox.net
Re: Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 22:32 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:25:11 -0400 (EDT), Alan Ianson wrote: I've noticed the same things. I've stuck with epiphany because it worked so well for so long but there are times recently when I need to use iceweasel. I think it's the switch from the gecko backend to webkit that broke a lot of things that used to work well. I keep hoping that these problems can be resolved but time will tell. I use unstable and downloading works fine but java apps that use the plugin still don't work. That's not good news. Which plugin? The Sun non-free one? There is one site that I used to use a lot that requires that to work. (It's a stock analysis site.) I haven't been in the market lately, but I expect to be active again at some point. And when I do want to use it, I want it to work! Yes, that's the one I use. There is progress with java in Epiphany. The java test page... http://java.com/en/download/installed.jsp?detect=jretry=1 does work as expected now where it didn't a short time ago. I'm happy with the way Epiphany works now myself, but my gf likes to play games at pogo.com and that website complains that the plugin isn't installed even though it is, and I hear grumbling about that on a regular basis.. :) Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. I'm not certain but the devs must feel it's a good strategy for the future... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1271561226.18395.7.ca...@debian.ok.shawcable.net
