Also, there are tools like apt which do exactly that for all of your software at once - so why rely on each program to check for updates individually?

Usually, auto updates and similar stuff are the first options that I disable in any program. No big deal to check the respective websites manually from time to time.

It's supposed to update firefox to the latest version. I've deliberately kept my problem vague to get people to post about any problem they may have with the update thing, instead of just my minor problem.
With me, it finds the updates, then claims to download/install them while doing nothing. I've kept the window open for four hours, which should be enough time, right?

Probably a stupid question, but how do I see whether it's working or not? What is it supposed to do?

Nope.

1.0.2 is out.
Does the auto-update function work for anyone here?

I believe that the alternate ant stlysheet link types are interpretated by all browsers, but I've never even heard of the rest of those.

Okay, only developing standards is the W3's problem. But in case of CSS 3 they are really slow this time, although it offers only some useful enhancements and doesn't change the core-structure.

Implementation is something different, you're right. But I believe, that popular things like round-borders and opacity will be implemented very fast, instead of current html-standards like Link Types for example, which are only interpreted by the Opera-Browser(?), but are defined since HTML 2.0.

Edited by dregenrocks at 15:40 on March, 10th 2005

Even CSS1 and 2 aren't fully implemented in current browsers, so I don't see how the problem is on the W3's side...

Yes, those new "browser-specific" css-attributes are just prototypes for the upcoming CSS 3. But if the W3 maintains current speed of development, we have to wait for 2010 until these attributes are clearly and "officially" specified and implemented.

When I really want to see the show I'm watching, I hit the mute button during commercials, otherwise I wind up getting into the show on another channel too much and forget to switch back. With shows I don't care so much about, I go ahead and flip. Of course, with the shows that I really want to watch, I record them first and then fast forward through the commercial breaks.

Opera is nice and fast, but requires either payment, ads within the browser itself, or illegal hacks. Also, I prefer firefox over all other browsers because of the adblock extension and because of the tab browser extension. The TBE gives you massive control over the behavior of the tabs, and adds many other features as well. FF is even better than moz due to the fact that you can customize the toolbars in FF (speed differences between the two are negligable, if they exist at all). All gecko browsers have a massive advantage over all other browsers (all other windows ones anyway, don't know about non-windows ones) in that they have a huge level of customizeability through the about:config screen.

Regarding browser specific stuff: Gecko browsers have some sweet browser-specific css tags, ones that can round off the corners of tables/divs (this can be done in any browser, but normally requires a lot of work, and custom images. The gecko css allows you to achieve the same thing with a simple line of css) and ones that can adjust the transparency of an element (again, you can achieve this effect in any browser, but it is normally more difficult). It should be noted here that gecko does their browser-specific css the way it is supposed to be done. Gecko specific css tags begin with "-moz". Opera also has some specific (although poorly documented) css tags, and they all begin with "-o". This is in stark contrast to the way IE likes to pretend that all their browser-specific css tags are actually standard tags.

I attached a small test page regarding the Opera problem. With such code, I expect the red box to be in the upper-left corner of the browser window. My Opera 7.54 puts some additional space on both sides. Any ideas?

Edit: Just noticed that you had already given the answer before: setting padding to zero in addition does it. Another ages-old riddle solved

I totally agree, and that's why I wouldn't use such hacks (anymore).

Edited by Mr Creosote at 13:45 on March, 07th 2005

I'm using version 7.54u2. Maybe this is some Quirks-specifica? I never had that problem in any 7.x version with valid (strict) pages.


I know and this is one of the few cases I think the W3 has to do better.

(relating to the fact, this is a coldfusion-community. )

I just don't want to make anything browser-specific again. Even when ignoring the fact that we do not develop for browsers, but for the www and browser have to subordinate users and standards, if you start to develop for browser you will find no real , satisfying end, but just waste time.

If the IE displays a broken layout, it's not my problem, but one of the IE.

Just asking, because the Opera I have at home (7.5something) doesn't. It always keeps a few pixels empty which is quite annoying.

In that case, you prefer the 'broken' way. Gecko and Opera are acting according to the W3 documents. Here's a nice article about it, including a solution (a dirty hack, admittedly).

Yes, of course it does. Never noticed it differently. But Opera gives some pixels default-padding for the body , if not stated otherwise. I think this is also default in the other engines and standard-styles.

btw It's also one of my "default" webdesign problems, that IE-Engine, Gecko and Opera interpret padding differently. While Gecko and Opera add padding to the width of an object, like they add the border-width to the whole object-width, the IE-Engine cuts the padding from the "original" width, just making the text-paragraph smaller. I prefer the last.

I'm also convinced that there isn't a single user of Adblock who isn't using it to the max. Once people get started with it, they'll just block everything. No matter whether a site has tons of really bad ads or, for example, one hand-picked banner per page without sound and without obstrusive animation. The latter should show the webmaster cares that the visitors aren't too annoyed by ads on his site, but Adblock users won't care - they'll block it anyway, effectively making all the work the webmaster had with picking decent banners contraproductive.

Does Opera understand margin:0px as a body attribute by now?

I agree absolutely on that. The weird thing about this is also, that most "adblockers" compare their WWW-behaviour with watching TV. They switch the channel during the commercial-break (At least they say so...) and do the "same" when on the internet with their adblocker. Total nonsense!

On my home-computer I switched back to Opera btw.. It's more comfortable to me and has an integrated mail-client, which isn't that bad, too. At least better than most of the mail-clients I tried the last weeks. And the Opera-Frontend is highly customizable, but still very fast.

The only thing I miss, is the possibility to make mouse-gestures visible, like the Firefox-Extensions do.

The other thing, which made me switch back are some minor, but annoying bugs. In particular when marking text-paragraphs.

As a user, I condemn everything which takes choice away from me, so server-side spam filters, restrictive firewalls / proxies which I can't configure myself do fall under that, yes.

Users of text browser do load most ads by the way, as it's just a matter of loading the code. Images and 'virtually displayed', too.

The issue has many facets, of course, and my view isn't as one-sided as it may seem sometimes. What I consider totally lame is just the oh-so-trendy attitude to run around telling everybody how 'great' Adblock (or whatever comparable program) removes all ads from the view and how greedy webmasters can go stuff themselves. Nobody seems to notice there's a fine line non-commercial sites are walking on already. Then, if they all disappear one-by-one, because the financial loss becomes too huge (mind you I'm not even talking about financing a site through ads completely), everybody is whining - without making the link between one's own behaviour and these consequences.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 18:09 on March, 05th 2005

True. Then again, that was just an aside comment.
Our views on blocking ads obviously differ (you, as a webmaster are concerned with making money for your site, and I as a visitor am concerned with not having annoying clutter and useless crap downloading), however, you are still wrong in calling adblock lame. Despite it's name, adblock is simply a content filter. It comes with no preconfigured blocklist, and what it does block is based entirely upon the individual user's actions. If you're going to condemn adblock for being a content filter, you should similarly condemn every firewall, every netnanny prog, many proxies, and any other software intended to filter content (including flashblock).

...and while you're busy condemning ad blocking software, stop to consider the fact that the text-only browsers you're so fond of are also ad blockers of a sort. Since they show no images at all, they show also no ads (with the possible exception of text based ads).

That's total nonsense. Big sites always use CPM (cost per impression) schemes. They just sometimes get better rates per thousand banner impressions if the clickthrough rate is high (which it never is). Also, advertising images are almost never loaded from the same server as the site they're displayed on, but directly from the advertiser, so that "I'm only doing them a favour" doesn't work, either.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 17:23 on March, 05th 2005