intrusive: that's a bad call on MS's (marketing?) teams, no real counter-argument here. interruptive: updates should auto apply during boot/shutdown as the do but if they were fast no one would...
intrusive: that's a bad call on MS's (marketing?) teams, no real counter-argument here.
interruptive: updates should auto apply during boot/shutdown as the do but if they were fast no one would care
requiring reboots: all the system files are stored in RAM when the computer is on, so a reboot is required for the changes to actually take place and be loaded by the system
I'm not sure I understand why this is annoying. It's not like you have to sit there and watch it update. It just does it's thing and turns off when it's done. Unless there's a reason you need it...
Updates applying when Windows is shutting down is super annoying. If I'm telling the computer I want it to turn off, that's all it should do. I did not ask for it to start updating itself. If it was faster it would be less immediately annoying but I'd still dislike it.
I'm not sure I understand why this is annoying. It's not like you have to sit there and watch it update. It just does it's thing and turns off when it's done. Unless there's a reason you need it to shut down super quickly or you just don't like it doing additional things for control reasons, I don't see an issue.
Consider this, back in the day I was in the middle of a competitive dota2 match, windows decided it had given me enough of a chance and force a reboot of my computer, it took 10 minutes to apply...
Consider this, back in the day I was in the middle of a competitive dota2 match, windows decided it had given me enough of a chance and force a reboot of my computer, it took 10 minutes to apply the updates. I got back into the match just in time to see my team lose. Now imagine if that had been my work, I was in the middle of upgrading a production server where shutting down the register was $100,000 an hour and now I've been delayed for $17,000. Should I have updated earlier? Sure but fuck you Microsoft for making that decision for me. (I would never be doing such a thing from Windows so the worst that would happen to me is that I'd lose ranking in a game I was playing, but I know more than a few people that do actual work from Windows PCs)
I disagree that's entirely different, it's a superset of the problem that windows forces updates while rebooting. It wouldn't be an issue or likely considered necessary from Microsoft in the first...
I disagree that's entirely different, it's a superset of the problem that windows forces updates while rebooting. It wouldn't be an issue or likely considered necessary from Microsoft in the first place if windows didn't require reboots to update files that are currently in use. It's another bad decision caused by a chain of bad decisions.
Lots of great points. Reminds me of this article by Netlify where they made a static-HTML clock that runs by deploying a new page with the new time every minute:...
Deploying should not be daunting. It should be mundane. The excitement should come from releasing something new to the world, not from wondering if the release is going to work as planned.
I decided to look at what could happen when continuous deployment is so mundane, so solved, so predictable, that I could deploy with confidence every day. Every hour. Every minute.
You're right! It was hiding in the meta tags all along. <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> <style>/* ... */</style> <link...
You're right! It was hiding in the meta tags all along.
I ran into this issue recently and here are the solutions that I came across: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/view-source/id1041817284 (Free, separate app)...
I’m on mobile so can’t inspect element at the moment
apple developer terms of service includes line about not running 3rd party code, which is the definition of a browser, so chrome/firefox/all alternatives on ios are forced to use webkit as the...
apple developer terms of service includes line about not running 3rd party code, which is the definition of a browser, so chrome/firefox/all alternatives on ios are forced to use webkit as the engine and are basically just less well integrated reskins
Right, I understand that WebKit is the only real engine for browsing on iOS, but the other apps I noted up-thread are allowed to show source... so why can’t Mozilla combine the WebKit browsing...
Right, I understand that WebKit is the only real engine for browsing on iOS, but the other apps I noted up-thread are allowed to show source... so why can’t Mozilla combine the WebKit browsing engine with their own view that just shows the source via a menu option?
I am relatively ignorant in this space, but does not running 3rd party code somehow include this use case/implementation?
I'm 99% sure that they wouldn't get rejected for adding "view source", so I'd bet that it just hasn't been implemented due to effort involved/lack of demand. Implementing the whole devtools...
I'm 99% sure that they wouldn't get rejected for adding "view source", so I'd bet that it just hasn't been implemented due to effort involved/lack of demand. Implementing the whole devtools interface on top of a different browser engine would be a lot of work, and the subset of people looking to use it specifically on iOS Firefox is likely fairly small.
Thanks, I think that you are correct about lack of interest: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/search?utf8=✓&q=“view+source”&type=Issues = 0 results that I was looking for. I have...
yeah, i don't really know about that one. i was going to go read the developer ToS to try and find out but it asked me to sign in to my developer account, which i don't have
yeah, i don't really know about that one. i was going to go read the developer ToS to try and find out but it asked me to sign in to my developer account, which i don't have
I never really considered the Windows update process until I moved to OSX and Linux. I started to write this comment while I did a dist-upgrade, but the process was completed in about a minute....
I never really considered the Windows update process until I moved to OSX and Linux.
I started to write this comment while I did a dist-upgrade, but the process was completed in about a minute.
I’ve moved all of my Windows boxes over to LTSB in an effort to have more control over updates. These days Windows feels more like an abusive ex than the deadbeat husband I used to love.
I like this article for it's focus and critiques on testing, although I don't think it appreciates how old and huge Windows is or how much Microsoft has been messing with the back-end. If I...
I like this article for it's focus and critiques on testing, although I don't think it appreciates how old and huge Windows is or how much Microsoft has been messing with the back-end. If I remember correctly, their difficulty managing windows was one reason they acquired github. It also seems the author sort of misunderstands the windows preview program. It's explicitly stated it's not to be used as a daily driver and will be unstable. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable, but it was never meant to be anywhere near release quality.
edit: on a side note, I think Microsoft's bigger problem is that their devs are bad or apathetic about their work.
the point was that it shouldn't really ever be that unstable. the testing should be in place after development so that devs and managers know almost immediately if a change has broken itself or...
windows preview program. It's explicitly stated it's not to be used as a daily driver and will be unstable. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable, but it was never meant to be anywhere near release quality.
the point was that it shouldn't really ever be that unstable. the testing should be in place after development so that devs and managers know almost immediately if a change has broken itself or other systems.
Right, but the justification that things shouldn't be that way is that it But that was never the intention of the fast and skip ahead rings or to some extent even the slow ring. The argument is...
Right, but the justification that things shouldn't be that way is that it
undermines the value of the Insider testing: insiders aren't, in fact, exposing the new builds to the full range of hardware and software that's out there, because they're not using the builds on their primary machine and with the full range of hardware and software they own and use. They're using lesser-used secondary machines and virtual machines.
But that was never the intention of the fast and skip ahead rings or to some extent even the slow ring. The argument is that the insider program isn't being tested on daily drivers. But it was never supposed to be.
This can still be a problem, but it I just don't think it's a good point to complain about a program not doing what it wasn't intended to do.
well on one hand, it's wrong, because plenty of people use insider versions on windows as their daily drivers. on the other hand, the section was pointing out that everyone that doesn't, doesn't...
well on one hand, it's wrong, because plenty of people use insider versions on windows as their daily drivers. on the other hand, the section was pointing out that everyone that doesn't, doesn't because they're scared about it critically messing up their computers. which they should never have to. the insider program should be a way to find edge cases not regular use bug that nearly brick the system.
I'm not sure I understand why this is annoying. It's not like you have to sit there and watch it update. It just does it's thing and turns off when it's done. Unless there's a reason you need it to shut down super quickly or you just don't like it doing additional things for control reasons, I don't see an issue.
Consider this, back in the day I was in the middle of a competitive dota2 match, windows decided it had given me enough of a chance and force a reboot of my computer, it took 10 minutes to apply the updates. I got back into the match just in time to see my team lose. Now imagine if that had been my work, I was in the middle of upgrading a production server where shutting down the register was $100,000 an hour and now I've been delayed for $17,000. Should I have updated earlier? Sure but fuck you Microsoft for making that decision for me. (I would never be doing such a thing from Windows so the worst that would happen to me is that I'd lose ranking in a game I was playing, but I know more than a few people that do actual work from Windows PCs)
I mean, yeah that's really awful but not what we were talking about
That's an entirely different issue. Forced reboots are undoubtedly horrible.
I disagree that's entirely different, it's a superset of the problem that windows forces updates while rebooting. It wouldn't be an issue or likely considered necessary from Microsoft in the first place if windows didn't require reboots to update files that are currently in use. It's another bad decision caused by a chain of bad decisions.
Lots of great points.
Reminds me of this article by Netlify where they made a static-HTML clock that runs by deploying a new page with the new time every minute: https://www.netlify.com/blog/2018/08/02/exploring-the-potential-of-friction-free-deployments/
Any idea how it refreshes the page automatically? I don't see any JS.
You're right! It was hiding in the meta tags all along.
Another day, another piece of esoteric web knowledge.
I ran into this issue recently and here are the solutions that I came across:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/view-source/id1041817284 (Free, separate app)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/view-source-html-javascript-and-css/id917660039 ($.99, but cooler Safari extension)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tozalakyan.viewsource (have not tried it)
Oh cool. Well Mozilla comes through again. I just checked on iOS, and I don’t see it there. I wonder why it’s only on Android?
apple developer terms of service includes line about not running 3rd party code, which is the definition of a browser, so chrome/firefox/all alternatives on ios are forced to use webkit as the engine and are basically just less well integrated reskins
Right, I understand that WebKit is the only real engine for browsing on iOS, but the other apps I noted up-thread are allowed to show source... so why can’t Mozilla combine the WebKit browsing engine with their own view that just shows the source via a menu option?
I am relatively ignorant in this space, but does not running 3rd party code somehow include this use case/implementation?
I'm 99% sure that they wouldn't get rejected for adding "view source", so I'd bet that it just hasn't been implemented due to effort involved/lack of demand. Implementing the whole devtools interface on top of a different browser engine would be a lot of work, and the subset of people looking to use it specifically on iOS Firefox is likely fairly small.
If you feel like some light bedtime reading, the review guidelines are here: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ - the browser clause is pretty specific:
Thanks, I think that you are correct about lack of interest: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/search?utf8=✓&q=“view+source”&type=Issues = 0 results that I was looking for.
I have actually read Apple’s iOS guidelines before, but it’s probably time to re-read them.
yeah, i don't really know about that one. i was going to go read the developer ToS to try and find out but it asked me to sign in to my developer account, which i don't have
I never really considered the Windows update process until I moved to OSX and Linux.
I started to write this comment while I did a dist-upgrade, but the process was completed in about a minute.
I’ve moved all of my Windows boxes over to LTSB in an effort to have more control over updates. These days Windows feels more like an abusive ex than the deadbeat husband I used to love.
I like this article for it's focus and critiques on testing, although I don't think it appreciates how old and huge Windows is or how much Microsoft has been messing with the back-end. If I remember correctly, their difficulty managing windows was one reason they acquired github. It also seems the author sort of misunderstands the windows preview program. It's explicitly stated it's not to be used as a daily driver and will be unstable. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable, but it was never meant to be anywhere near release quality.
edit: on a side note, I think Microsoft's bigger problem is that their devs are bad or apathetic about their work.
the point was that it shouldn't really ever be that unstable. the testing should be in place after development so that devs and managers know almost immediately if a change has broken itself or other systems.
Right, but the justification that things shouldn't be that way is that it
But that was never the intention of the fast and skip ahead rings or to some extent even the slow ring. The argument is that the insider program isn't being tested on daily drivers. But it was never supposed to be.
This can still be a problem, but it I just don't think it's a good point to complain about a program not doing what it wasn't intended to do.
well on one hand, it's wrong, because plenty of people use insider versions on windows as their daily drivers. on the other hand, the section was pointing out that everyone that doesn't, doesn't because they're scared about it critically messing up their computers. which they should never have to. the insider program should be a way to find edge cases not regular use bug that nearly brick the system.