221–230 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You actually have to snail-mail them your resignation letter So? You have to send written notice to cancel any contract in Germany. This is totally standard.
Just because it's common doesn't mean it's acceptable. There's no reason why signing up should be easier than canceling. It's just a trick to be able to charge the customer one last time.
I saw the tag line, liked what I saw until "powered by Telefonica". Seriously, I've lived in more than half of the European countries for a while, and never ever EVER saw such a shitty internet service as in Spain over their network. Lack of service for hours every day, substandard speeds... It made me anticipate a move to Portugal by one year because of their shitty service.
I am bummed - I was hoping it was just straight up peer to peer video. Why do we need an intermediary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can see it as a pre-bundled extension, I suppose. I think the point of pre-bundling it is to get more attention and in that way to promote WebRTC, which is a good goal. Size-wise, I didn't look at the code but this is likely a tiny extension, it's just a little UI over WebRTC.
> the point of pre-bundling it is to get more attention and in that way to promote WebRTC // Presumably though instead of FF dev team making a Moz sponsored extension Telefonica came to them and said "we'll give you this barrel of cash if we can put our name on a new part of FF that gets default installed". Indeed Moz could have just had Telefonica named as devs on an extension and shipped it as default - which would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then your argument is against webRTC, not Hello.
I am also against webRTC, I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Mozilla is signalling with this that they're looking to push applications that leverage their feature-set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am also against webRTC, I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Mozilla is signalling with this that they're looking to push applications that leverage their feature-set.
Yes, because no other browser vendor ever does that. cough Google cough .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a success story with that. I moved abroad and I have a chat with my parents using Skype from time to time. After the Microsoft acquisition Skype had to be upgraded and the old version stopped working. My parents aren't tech-savvy really and I failed to diagnose their problem remotely, so I tried https://talky.io/ (just because I watched Sam Dutton talk about WebRTC and he used that web for a demo). It worked (…
The problem I had doing something similar was getting the link to them. You need some other out-of-band communication method, whereas with skype you just agree to a time of the week when to sign on and call each other. Email sort-of works, but not as easily as the central logged-in lobby system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telefonica run O2 in the UK, which is a decent mobile network (and the only one which covers my house).
O2 in Germany sucks, though. You actually have to snail-mail them your resignation letter, there are frequent brief outages in the night and they are often slow at setting up your service. I mean, they do deliver decent internet, but their customer service is awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this isn't "bundled with a monolithic browser blob"; it's enabled by supporting WebRTC, and it's compatible with other WebRTC implementations. That we're even discussing this goes to show the tragic decline of critical thinking and basic reading comprehension on this board.
I thought the topic quickly moved to be about A/V conferencing, WebRTC and other features in general, not Hello in particular. There isn't much to discuss about yet-another-WebRTC-site, so the topic had shifted. And then everything depends on how one views things. Firefox is a monolithic blob, and WebRTC is a fairly tightly integrated part of it. This is valid point to discuss. For one, I'm not sure if it's a good id…
Maybe I'm a bit too old-school in this regard, but I view the WWW as an interactive document repository (sites/forums/rich-apps), whereas the Internet is the network that the WWW operates on. So for me, a browser is used to explore/use the WWW whereas individual applications and tools are used to explore/use the Internet.
I feel this is an important distinction because I would like at least one modern/popular web browser to retain this philosophy, which is difficult when each browser (and parent umbrella org) decide to push more desktop-app-like functionality to the browser.
10 years ago the internet was quite different (and 10 years prior to that too), I'm curious / worried / cautious how it'll be in another decade. At least it'll be an interesting ride :-P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has that happened to you? I noticed a new fancy Bookmark management system in Chromium and then it suddenly disappeared again.
Well, offtopic, but imho bookmarks need serious work in Chromium. I'm constantly looking for my bookmarks, and not finding them. Perhaps a search+time filter could help here. Also, when clicking on "Other bookmarks", I currently get a dropdown of about a thousand elements :) I hope a UX person can have a good look at this sometime.
I always thought the system for displaying the bookmarks bar was a bit daft because you could only see about 10 bookmarks before running out of horizontal room. On OSX at least we have a dedicated "Bookmarks" menu but using it under Linux and Windows was always painful due to this strange (IMHO) design.