131–140 of 194 posts
This is extremely annoying for a project I'm working on that involves subdomains. If I set nginx to redirect `example.com` to `www.example.com` I want to verify it in the browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that Firefox stopped copying http:// (when I want to copy URL) which is very annoying to me. I need the whole address when copying.
Firefox hides the http:// scheme in the address bar, but will include it if you copy the URL. You can test with http://example.com/ and https://example.com/ .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its hostile for power users but it prevents grandpa from renaming 'IMG_144.jpg' to 'Idaho_grandkids', hammering enter on the 'are you sure you want this' nag screen and then wondering what broke his picture.
This was never a problem with classic Mac OS. Files had a type code and a creator code. The type code told application whether they could open the file. The creator code told the Finder which application to open when the file was double-clicked. It was impossible for the user to change either (in the stock OS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox hides the http:// scheme in the address bar, but will include it if you copy the URL. You can test with http://example.com/ and https://example.com/ .
Nice! Though it'd be good if they swapped the scenario where they hide the protocol to be `https` and make `http` the one that sticks out awkwardly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its hostile for power users but it prevents grandpa from renaming 'IMG_144.jpg' to 'Idaho_grandkids', hammering enter on the 'are you sure you want this' nag screen and then wondering what broke his picture.
This was never a problem with classic Mac OS. Files had a type code and a creator code. The type code told application whether they could open the file. The creator code told the Finder which application to open when the file was double-clicked. It was impossible for the user to change either (in the stock OS).
That's... much, much worse than dot extensions.
I had to laugh when they started parading thier fake-human avatar "to call and lie to people".
But really, their big value item is language engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On Macs before 2001, that used to work! We didn't used to cram pieces of file metadata into file names. File type was stored its own slot. The hidden-ness of a file was stored in its own slot. I find it amazing that despite the industry's trend in recent years away from string-typing and towards static-typing, metadata-in-file-name just won't die. I'm all for removing old ways of doing things that were bad, when we h…
Apple used to be the innovator in file metadata. They stopped when Steve came back because proper metadata made it more difficult to share files with Windows and Unix. And we're still stuck with crap metadata to this day.
This reminds me of how Windows frustratingly hides file extensions by default. This sounds low-upside/high-downside to me, but it's the sort of thing with simple arguments-for (easier for clueless users! Cleaner!), and nuanced arguments-against (eliding rarely-useful details in special cases causes ambiguity, and can lead to confusion is some cases, particularly for clueless users).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have they though? How many of their users understand what "www" or "https" mean? For those that have a vague idea, how many ever look? I don't like the change either, for a variety of reasons, but I don't think I'm their average user either. For the average user, seeing the domain and nothing else likely improves security.
> seeing the domain and nothing else likely improves security By hiding between 1 to 3 letters? It seems much more secure to do it like Firefox using grey for the unimportant part and black for the important part. If anything, if "m" is hijacked (by a feature actually to use subdomains), it's less secure because now he thinks he is somewhere that he isn't.