From: sabrina downard Date: 16:05 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Firefox let us suppose that one is typing into a text input field in a web form, one for which the type attribute is, oh, say, 'password.' let us further suppose that the string that one is typing into this text input field contains a character that firefox thinks is a shortcut for 'i want to find the following text on this page.' now, should firefox interpret that shortcut key, seeing as how it's being typed into an input box? and should firefox interpret the shortcut key by bringing up the find toolbar at the bottom of the page and letting one type the rest of the password into that box where it is revealed in all its plain-text glory to any onlookers? ...sure, what the hell! layman's hate today, --sabrina.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 16:43 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Re: Firefox Given how naive those blokes are about security, I'm not surprised they're equally naive about privacy.
From: Gavin Estey Date: 16:54 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: RE: Firefox I also hate how Firefox tries to save and autofill things it shouldn't. I'm kind of concerned how I can type in 4483 into a textbox and it helpfully will complete the rest of my Visa number. Gavin. -----Original Message----- From: sabrina downard [mailto:sld@xxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 11:06 AM To: hates Subject: Firefox let us suppose that one is typing into a text input field in a web form, one for which the type attribute is, oh, say, 'password.' let us further suppose that the string that one is typing into this text input field contains a character that firefox thinks is a shortcut for 'i want to find the following text on this page.' now, should firefox interpret that shortcut key, seeing as how it's being typed into an input box? and should firefox interpret the shortcut key by bringing up the find toolbar at the bottom of the page and letting one type the rest of the password into that box where it is revealed in all its plain-text glory to any onlookers? ...sure, what the hell! layman's hate today, --sabrina.
From: Luke Kanies Date: 17:44 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: RE: Firefox On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Gavin Estey wrote: > > I also hate how Firefox tries to save and autofill things it shouldn't. I'm > kind of concerned how I can type in 4483 into a textbox and it helpfully > will complete the rest of my Visa number. The "I'm trying to be helpful" aspect of Firefox that I've been hating recently is when I'm modifying the first word in some text in a text field. It works fine if I'm modifying the end of the text, but if I try to click into the middle of the text then the little autofill thing comes up and basically steals my click. It usually takes about four or five clicks to actually get a functional cursor where I want, and you can pretty much forget about just click-dragging to select your text. Safari has some similar hate to this because it autofills the URL on the URL bar, instead of in a menu below it. I find that I have to type, um, real fast in order to get to a URL that's part of another, longer URL that I've previously gone to. Otherwise, Safari helpfully fills in the longer URL and I inevitably go there instead of where i wanted. Yeah, thanks guys.
From: sabrina downard Date: 18:57 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: RE: Firefox : Yeah, thanks guys. someday, someone will figure out how to make the software not think it is smarter than us. ...right?
From: Robert G. Werner Date: 19:13 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Re: Firefox sabrina downard wrote: > : Yeah, thanks guys. > > someday, someone will figure out how to make the software not think it > is smarter than us. > > ...right? > > > No evidence of that in the past 40 years (I haven't been around that long but I've heard stories dating back that far). One still remains hopefull, but I think the real problem is between the seat and the keyboard on those program creators computers.
From: Juerd Date: 19:42 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Re: Firefox Luke Kanies skribis 2005-08-11 11:44 (-0500): > Safari has some similar hate to this because it autofills the URL on the > URL bar, instead of in a menu below it. I find that I have to type, um, > real fast in order to get to a URL that's part of another, longer URL > that I've previously gone to. Otherwise, Safari helpfully fills in > the longer URL and I inevitably go there instead of where i wanted. This is the primary reason for me to use Firefox instead of Safari. Juerd
From: Ann Barcomb Date: 19:46 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: RE: Firefox On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Luke Kanies wrote: > Safari has some similar hate to this because it autofills the URL on the > URL bar, instead of in a menu below it. I find that I have to type, um, > real fast in order to get to a URL that's part of another, longer URL > that I've previously gone to. Otherwise, Safari helpfully fills in > the longer URL and I inevitably go there instead of where i wanted. Yeah, I don't know why it doesn't default to the shortest link at that site. I get around it by continuing to type and then hitting a space at the end to stop it from filling in anything further.
From: Robert G. Werner Date: 19:11 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Re: Firefox sabrina downard wrote: > let us suppose that one is typing into a text input field in a web form, > one for which the type attribute is, oh, say, 'password.' > > let us further suppose that the string that one is typing into this text > input field contains a character that firefox thinks is a shortcut for > 'i want to find the following text on this page.' > > now, should firefox interpret that shortcut key, seeing as how it's > being typed into an input box? > > and should firefox interpret the shortcut key by bringing up the find > toolbar at the bottom of the page and letting one type the rest of the > password into that box where it is revealed in all its plain-text glory > to any onlookers? > > ...sure, what the hell! > > > layman's hate today, > --sabrina. > While I love type ahead find very much it does have some annoying "quirks" shall we say. This is definitly one.
From: Juerd Date: 19:42 on 11 Aug 2005 Subject: Re: Firefox Robert G. Werner skribis 2005-08-11 11:11 (-0700): > While I love type ahead find very much it does have some annoying > "quirks" shall we say. This is definitly one. It worked better before they introduced this toolbar, IMO. Juerd
From: demerphq Date: 18:13 on 15 Sep 2005 Subject: Firefox Why oh why will you not search the text inside of a textarea? It sure is nice that you find the version of "dosen't" in the text of the post, the one I noticed myself, but wouldn't it be just a little nicer if you found the one in the textare that I can actually change? I mean I'm not asking for search and replace or anything.... Hate. Hate. Hate! --=20 perl -Mre=3Ddebug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
From: Nicholas Clark
Date: 17:16 on 07 Jun 2007
Subject: Firefox
So, I'm testing a web proxy at work for the sysadmins.
And it turns out that they turned it off about 10 minutes ago. *This* explains
why a site I'm trying to load is timing out.
Not the FUCKING USELESS ERROR MESSAGE THAT FIREFOX GAVE ME:
The connection has timed out
The server at www.quirksmode.org is taking too long to respond.
* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a
few moments.
* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make
sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
Note. It DOES NOT give the proxy's address. It gives the upstream site.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Dear Firefox, the machine that you can't open the TCP connection to is at
10.101.1.60. So damn well tell me that in the error message. Just because
IE is shit at reporting pertinent facts doesn't mean that you need to be too.
Nicholas Clark
From: Patrick Quinn-Graham Date: 17:38 on 07 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox On 7-Jun-07, at 5:16 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > So, I'm testing a web proxy at work for the sysadmins. > > And it turns out that they turned it off about 10 minutes ago. > *This* explains > why a site I'm trying to load is timing out. > > > Not the FUCKING USELESS ERROR MESSAGE THAT FIREFOX GAVE ME: Sadly Firefox is not alone in this hatred. Safari is the same way (no, it's not www.google.com, it's localhost.), as is (as far as I know) everything that uses the CFNetwork stuff. At least those things all pick up on the global "I'm on HSDPA, use a proxy. Now I'm at work... wait, no, we don't use a proxy over wifi..." ~patrick
From: Mike Beattie Date: 12:16 on 18 Jul 2007 Subject: RE: Firefox > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Clark [mailto:nick@xxxxxxx.xxx] On Behalf Of > Nicholas Clark > Sent: Friday, 8 June 2007 4:17 a.m. > To: hate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx > Subject: Firefox .... > Just because > IE is shit at reporting pertinent facts doesn't mean that you > need to be too. I apologise on 2 counts, one for replying to such an old post, and secondly for using Outlook. (Work has foisted it on me, since we're in the middle of a rather large upgrade to Exchange (So I'm using it to access my home imap spool too, since, well, why not. Turns out it's not actually a bad imap mail client to my surprise.. I digress). Anyway, I'll apologise again - for 'defending' IE. I was recently shown how to turn off those god-awful 'error' messages: Tools ->Internet Options ->Advanced tab ->Browsing section ->Uncheck "Show friendly HTTP error messages" --> OH GOD SWEET error messages! Mike.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 13:35 on 18 Jul 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox > ->Uncheck "Show friendly HTTP error messages" Oh yes, that's a lovely one. Right up there with "open 'safe' files after downloading" and "hide extensions for known file types" in the "hateful options that should never have been implemented, let alone enabled by default with the 'you belong dead' switch hidden in a locked filing cabinet in an unused basement behind a sign that says 'beware of the leopard'" stakes.
From: John Tobin Date: 13:46 on 18 Jul 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:16:30PM +1200, Mike Beattie wrote: > Anyway, I'll apologise again - for 'defending' IE. I was recently shown how > to turn off those god-awful 'error' messages: > > Tools > ->Internet Options > ->Advanced tab > ->Browsing section > ->Uncheck "Show friendly HTTP error messages" > --> OH GOD SWEET error messages! That is indeed a horrible default, but it gets worse: any time a user here has a problem sending email with Squirrelmail we tell them to disable friendly error messages - and they no longer have a problem.
From: Phil Pennock
Date: 02:23 on 19 Jul 2007
Subject: Re: Firefox
On 2007-07-18 at 23:16 +1200, Mike Beattie wrote:
> I apologise on 2 counts, one for replying to such an old post, and secondly
> for using Outlook. (Work has foisted it on me, since we're in the middle of
> a rather large upgrade to Exchange (So I'm using it to access my home imap
> spool too, since, well, why not. Turns out it's not actually a bad imap mail
> client to my surprise.. I digress).
Aside from requesting _all_ headers for every mail, instead of just the
headers it's interested in and actually needs. So chews more bandwidth
per user on little things like opening large folders and breaks the
older header-caching in Cyrus, so that retrievals end up having to hit
the disk for every mail in a folder instead of being able to get all the
relevant data from cyrus.{index,cache} or whichever the files are.
So I adjusted the caching for all the mail-clients in use except
Outlook, so the people who managed to use politics to rewrite existing
corporate security policy got upset because their mail-client wasn't as
responsive as others. *shrugs*
Slow numbing of pain
From previous employer
Anger fades away
-Phil
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 12:50 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Firefox Dear firefuckwit, You know, if I invoke you from the command-line, I don't actually want you to call the current firefuckwit running on my $DISPLAY and make it open a new window. I want a whole new goddamn instance. Because, you know, with the wonders of X, it might just happen to be that you're being invoked on a different machine, and I actually want to do something local to THAT machine. Not THIS machine. Who'd've thought. And, you know, there is this option '-no-remote' option, but it doesn't seem to work. If I pass you an option, any option, you just ignore it, and open a new window on my existing browser, on its home page. If I pass you something you interpret as a URL, you open it in a new tab in an existing window on my existing browser. This isn't helpful. AT ALL. Nor is it consistent with ANY documentation. Dear firefuckwit developers - prepare to meet an ice pick... Nicholas Clark
From: Yossi Kreinin Date: 13:10 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Dear firefuckwit developers - prepare to meet an ice pick... > Apparently lots of threads have this subject line. Hmmm. Why could that be? I was just about to start a thread with this same name. You see, on my workstation, about once a day on average the fox burns out and dumps core. Apparently there are at least two failure modes: * I go to a site which has Flash contents (usually following a link someone sent in a mail message). I'm not sure it's Flash; maybe it's other not-plain-HTML stuff. * I do nothing. That's right, I go away from my machine and when I come back, the frisky fox has already taken a dump. Maybe it doesn't want to live in the same universe with xlock. At least the first failure mode happens both with Mozilla (some version from the very beginning of the century) and the latest and greatest Firefox (the cunning thing updates itself automatically and has the NERVE to happily tell me about it after each crash). Now, I could blaim plug-ins for viewing the not-plain-HTML contents, but wouldn't it be better if *Firefox* blaimed them (by, say, looking at it's call stack right before it's death) and asked me if I wanted to uninstall them or something? Seems feasible to me. And then there are the crashes caused by not doing anything.
From: Tony Finch Date: 15:59 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > I was just about to start a thread with this same name. You see, on my > workstation, about once a day on average the fox burns out and dumps core. > Apparently there are at least two failure modes: > > * I go to a site which has Flash contents (usually following a link someone > sent in a mail message). I'm not sure it's Flash; maybe it's other > not-plain-HTML stuff. It's called "crash" for a reason. Tony.
From: Steff Davies Date: 13:10 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox Nicholas Clark wrote: > Dear firefuckwit, > > You know, if I invoke you from the command-line, I don't actually want you > to call the current firefuckwit running on my $DISPLAY and make it open a > new window. I want a whole new goddamn instance. [...] > And, you know, there is this option '-no-remote' option, but it doesn't seem > to work. If I pass you an option, any option, you just ignore it, and open a > new window on my existing browser, on its home page. When I was first struck by this particular hate, I made an effort to track down a means of turning this behaviour off since, as you mention, the no-remote switch is apparently broken. Eventually, I came across a mailing list or forum post with a working solution. It was to pass an explicit window width on the command-line, which happened incidentally to bypass the code path that implements the hateful behaviour. At that point, I gave serious consideration to becoming an itinerant goatherd. S
From: Jonathan Stowe Date: 13:34 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:10 +0100, Steff Davies wrote: > At that > point, I gave serious consideration to becoming an itinerant goatherd. This seems to be a common reaction amongst people afflicted by software, I think it might be because goats and software have some attributes in common - unpredictable at times, stubbornly aggressive and occasionally plain stupid. I figure the time is right to pitch up to some tech conferences with a bunch of dirndl skirts, checked shirts and gingham head scarves and make the fortune that my parents always expected me to make :-) /J\
From: Peter da Silva Date: 15:23 on 15 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox > Dear firefuckwit developers - prepare to meet an ice pick... This is why I'm glad to see Apple release Safari for Windows. I have no idea whether Safari is hate-compatible with Firefox in this instance, and I know it has its own hate (which I have spoken of here), but since the only other KHTML-based browser for Windows that I have found sucks goat turds straight from the generator... being able to *choose* which hate to put up with is a jewel of too-rarely-recognised value.
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 15:05 on 28 Jun 2007 Subject: Firefox Dear Firefox, No, I don't see why I need to re-send POST data in order to 'view source' of the page I'm currently looking at. It's a local action I'm requesting. Get a grip on your caching strategy. Or die. Whichever is easier. Nicholas Clark
From: Peter da Silva Date: 16:22 on 28 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox On Jun 28, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > No, I don't see why I need to re-send POST data [...] You can stop there. WTF do I care if the previous page was POST, GET, PUT, HEDGE, BEND, FOLD, SPINDLE, or AUTOEROTIC_ASPHYXIATION? I just want to see WTF was on it. If I wanted you to reload it, I'd hit the -ing "reload" button. Bastard.
From: David King Date: 20:02 on 28 Jun 2007 Subject: Re: Firefox >> No, I don't see why I need to re-send POST data [...] > WTF do I care if the previous page was POST, GET, PUT, HEDGE, BEND, > FOLD, SPINDLE, or AUTOEROTIC_ASPHYXIATION? I want to see the RFC for that one
Generated at 12:27 on 27 Sep 2007 by mariachi