Google Chrome newsgroup?
Jim S
Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Mike Easter
> After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a 'lump' and
> Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
> Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
Google (apparently) thinks that people should talk about chrome in
googlegroups where the answers are scored and get help from chrome help
and the chrome blog.
Chrome gurus appear in the help group and provide pointers to such as
the chrome blog posts.
http://www.google.com/support/chrome/ Google Chrome Help
http://snipr.com/tw2hc Help forum > Google Chrome - <example: 183 of
555 people found this answer helpful.>
<another example: We're excited to announce that the latest update of
Google Chrome will allow you to remove individual thumbnails from the
New Tab page.For more information on the update, please visit the
reference below.
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2009/05/speedier-google-chrome-for-all-users.html
>
There is also a generic google ng alt.comp.google and chrome discussions
occur hither and thither, such as alt.comp.freeware
--
Mike Easter
al
> After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a 'lump' and
> Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
> Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
How do you find Opera "limited", just curious. Thanks
Stephen Wolstenholme
>After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a 'lump' and
>Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
>Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
I've been using Chrome beta since it first became available. In my
opinion Chrome is the best browser. You can get at all the discussion
groups using the Chrome help. There are no NNTP groups. You won't find
the help and discussion groups of much use because Chrome users rarely
need any help. Chrome just works.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Neural network applications, help and support.
Bear Bottoms
news:hhb9t9$n06$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
My only problem with Opera is their reluctance to share their API with
third party extension makers. Thus LastPass cannot develop and extension
for Opera which is a deal breaker with me, and why I left Opera.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearware.info
Bear Bottoms
news:d5dij5dbcfcp0i3o1...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:58:11 GMT, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a
>>'lump' and Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the
>>latest Google Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a
>>newsgroup.
>
> I've been using Chrome beta since it first became available. In my
> opinion Chrome is the best browser. You can get at all the discussion
> groups using the Chrome help. There are no NNTP groups. You won't find
> the help and discussion groups of much use because Chrome users rarely
> need any help. Chrome just works.
>
> Steve
>
Ditto on that. I was very surprised at the simplistic sophistication of
the browser. I'm sold...FireFox is already uninstalled.
Thomas Stevens
What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
ab516>
Bear Bottoms
@news.eternal-september.org:
Looks to me like they abandoned it.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Stevens <tste...@nospam.net> wrote in news:hhbdm2$o80$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
> >
> > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
> > ab516>
>
> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
What makes it look that way to you? Just curious.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091228175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
Well, I suppose it could stay in Alpha forever eh. Alpha4 ?
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091228175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CEFB3BF3589Bbe...@69.16.185.247>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas Stevens <tste...@nospam.net> wrote in news:hhbdm2$o80$1
> >> @news.eternal-september.org:
> >>
> >> > What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
> >> >
> >> > <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
> >> > ab516>
> >>
> >> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
> >
> > What makes it look that way to you? Just curious.
>
> Well, I suppose it could stay in Alpha forever eh. Alpha4 ?
I was curious about what makes it look to you as though it's
abandoned. You don't have to say if you don't want to, of course.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091228192...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
Hmmm, I thought you would be able to perceive what I meant by my comment.
Guess not. I'll help...Alpha4...no urgency there is it, certainly doesn't
seem to be a high priority considering the hype last year and the mystery
of the introduction.
Dave
Still pluggin away,more work on the mobile app development than the
desktop.
http://my.opera.com/dragonfly/blog/
The latest Dragonfly is dated Dec-01-2009 at the repos.
https://dragonfly.opera.com/app/zips/
Dave
--
Registered Linux user # 444770
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091228192...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CEFBDDF0C200be...@69.16.185.250>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> >> news:20091228175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >>
> >> > In <news:Xns9CEFB3BF3589Bbe...@69.16.185.247>,
> >> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thomas Stevens <tste...@nospam.net> wrote in news:hhbdm2$o80$1
> >> >> @news.eternal-september.org:
> >> >>
> >> >> > What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
> >> >> > ab516>
> >> >>
> >> >> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
> >> >
> >> > What makes it look that way to you? Just curious.
> >>
> >> Well, I suppose it could stay in Alpha forever eh. Alpha4 ?
> >
> > I was curious about what makes it look to you as though it's
> > abandoned. You don't have to say if you don't want to, of course.
>
> Hmmm, I thought you would be able to perceive what I meant by my
> comment. Guess not. I'll help...Alpha4...no urgency there is it,
> certainly doesn't seem to be a high priority considering the hype
> last year and the mystery of the introduction.
No, no, I was asking what made it seem *abandoned* to you, not what
makes it seem to you that the ongoing development isn't urgent enough.
Perhaps "abandoned" isn't what you meant in the first place?
Bear Bottoms
news:20091228204...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
Nope...looking like they abandoned it is what I meant. That you can't
comprehend this isn't my problem. If and when they take it to beta may
change my mind. I only have a limited lifetime, not sure about you.
Bear Bottoms
news:7c141$4b396e9a$4831158c$29...@FUSE.NET:
Yeah, doesn't appear to be a top priority any more does it.
Dave
??Latest is less than a month old,Dec 1,before that Nov 26,Sep 9,Sep 2...
seems fairly steady.
Craig
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:07:37 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>> Dave<nodle...@fuse.net> wrote in
>> news:7c141$4b396e9a$4831158c$29...@FUSE.NET:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:06:42 +0000, Thomas Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
>>>>
>>>> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
>>>> ab516>
>>>
>>> Still pluggin away,more work on the mobile app development than the
>>> desktop.
>>> http://my.opera.com/dragonfly/blog/
>>> The latest Dragonfly is dated Dec-01-2009 at the repos.
>>> https://dragonfly.opera.com/app/zips/
>>>
>
> ??Latest is less than a month old,Dec 1,before that Nov 26,Sep 9,Sep 2...
> seems fairly steady.
The forum is pretty darned active too. This project isn't abandoned in
any sense of the word.
--
-Craig
Thomas Stevens
> Thomas Stevens <tste...@nospam.net> wrote in
> news:hhbdm2$o80$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>> al <a...@nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:hhb9t9$n06$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Jim S wrote:
>>>>> After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and
>>>>> more of a 'lump' and Opera which is fast, but limited, I
>>>>> have found that the latest Google Chrome beta does what I
>>>>> need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you find Opera "limited", just curious. Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> My only problem with Opera is their reluctance to share
>>> their API with third party extension makers. Thus LastPass
>>> cannot develop and extension for Opera which is a deal
>>> breaker with me, and why I left Opera.
>>>
>>
>> What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
>>
>> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74
>> ed994 ab516>
>>
>
> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
>
You were very positive. Like it was going to be important.
What a shame :( Never happened.
Bear Bottoms
@news.eternal-september.org:
Yeah I was excited. I mean it was very dramatic and mysterious they way
the introduced it. Yet today, it is still in Alpha after all this time.
Bear Bottoms
@FUSE.NET:
Look back to when it was first introduced and the mystery behind the
"It's coming" promo. What is coming? When is it coming? etc. We still
don't have it.
Bear Bottoms
news:hhc17q$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
We still don't have it. When and how was it first introduced Craig?
badgolferman
>Start Chrome...open a few tabs...start a utility like Process
>Explorer, etc...Why is there a dozen or so instances of Chrome
>running, using mega megabytes of memory? None of the other browsers
>exhibit that behavior. Chrome...no thanks.
Those are the extensions. Use Task Manager to close them and Chrome
will tell you what just got dropped. The browser will still run when
the extension crashes.
Bob Adkins
<st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:58:11 GMT, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a 'lump' and
>>Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
>>Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
>
>I've been using Chrome beta since it first became available. In my
>opinion Chrome is the best browser. You can get at all the discussion
>groups using the Chrome help. There are no NNTP groups. You won't find
>the help and discussion groups of much use because Chrome users rarely
>need any help. Chrome just works.
You know, I'm liking Chrome more and more.
Someone puts out a Chrome Ultra, and I'm hoping they add tab groups
and search aliases some day.
Craig
More importantly, you still enjoy fishing.
toodles,
--
-Craig
Jim S
You don't need tab groups - just middle-click on a folder and all the
contained tabs open (this is true for all browsers except Opera)
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Mister2u
Jim S
> Jim S wrote:
>> After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a 'lump' and
>> Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that the latest Google
>> Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot find a newsgroup.
>
>
> How do you find Opera "limited", just curious. Thanks
Blocking ads by default is difficult unless you have some pc-nous
(knowhow), closing a new tab from a new series moves back instead of
forward unless you move tabs before closing, opening all tabs in a folder
does not work with middle click and several other odds and sods that
Firefox and IE do out of the box. I used Opera for speed, but now that
Chrome is fast(er?) I will use it - until next time probably :o?
IMO The Mozilla crowd have lost the plot and just keep adding things to FF
AND TB just because they can.
badgolferman
>Chrome has the amazing ability to bypass filtering software.I'm sold.
What do you mean by that?
--
"My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating." ~
Ashleigh Brilliant
Mister2u
wrote:
> Mister2u wrote:
> >Chrome has the amazing ability to bypass filtering software.I'm sold.
>
> What do you mean by that?
I use a public PC that filters internet (FF and IE) for some reason it
doesn't
filter Chrome.
badgolferman
I'll guess that is because the filtering software they use does not
have hooks into Chrome yet. If you have Opera or Firefox on USB try
that sometime and see if they work.
Mister2u
I've tried a few portables Chrome is the only one that works
Bear Bottoms
news:hhdbad$j2m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On 12/29/2009 02:44 AM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> Craig<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>> news:hhc17q$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> On 12/28/2009 07:32 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:07:37 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave<nodle...@fuse.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:7c141$4b396e9a$4831158c$29...@FUSE.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:06:42 +0000, Thomas Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed9
>>>>>>> 94 ab516>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still pluggin away,more work on the mobile app development than
>>>>>> the desktop.
>>>>>> http://my.opera.com/dragonfly/blog/
>>>>>> The latest Dragonfly is dated Dec-01-2009 at the repos.
>>>>>> https://dragonfly.opera.com/app/zips/
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, doesn't appear to be a top priority any more does it.
>>>>
>>>> ??Latest is less than a month old,Dec 1,before that Nov 26,Sep
>>>> 9,Sep 2... seems fairly steady.
>>>
>>> The forum is pretty darned active too. This project isn't abandoned
>>> in any sense of the word.
>>>
>>
>> We still don't have it. When and how was it first introduced Craig?
>
> More importantly, you still enjoy fishing.
>
> toodles,
No Craig...you and Q are so busy trying to pick a fight you miss the
main attraction. The fact that Dragonfly was secretly introduced in Feb
08 with a quip from a Opera employee saying "Opera Dragonfly coming soon
2008." But they didn't tell you what it was. Speculation abounded. They
said it would be available by Oct 08. Did it happen...Nope!
"Opera�s David Storey, who lists his job title as �Chief Web Opener�,
posted an intriguing entry on his blog where he hints at a supersecret
project in the works, codenamed Dragonfly" "Cloak-and-dagger theatrics
make for great publicity, after all."
<http://browsing.justdiscourse.com/2008/02/25/opera-employee-hints-at-sec
ret-dragonfly-project/>
People surmised that Dragonfly would be revealed at SXSW in Texas, which
ran from March 7-16 in 2008, but that didn't happen either. Speculation
abounded. When first secretly mentioned, they said it would be available
by Oct 08. Did that happen...Nope! Here it is two years later and they
are still in Alpha????
Kinda looks to me like they abandoned it for 2 years after which such a
dramatic publicity stunt then petered out. Is it dead? Nope, not yet
anyway.
Craig and Q, you actually think they have worked on this actively for
two years and it is still in Alpha??? I do not.
Craig
That's a lot of smoke & mirrors to avoid the fact that you misspoke.
You wrote:
> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
It's not.
Now you can shuck & jive & bob & weave all you want but, in the end BB
your post was factually wrong. Not "you're wrong," BB. Just the
particular post. No need to get your panties in a twist, BB. Everyone
makes mistaqes.
--
-Craig
Bear Bottoms
news:hhe554$5lo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On 12/29/2009 03:18 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> Craig<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>> news:hhdbad$j2m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2009 02:44 AM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>> Craig<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hhc17q$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/28/2009 07:32 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:07:37 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave<nodle...@fuse.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:7c141$4b396e9a$4831158c$29...@FUSE.NET:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:06:42 +0000, Thomas Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74e
>>>>>>>>> d9 94 ab516>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still pluggin away,more work on the mobile app development than
>>>>>>>> the desktop.
>>>>>>>> http://my.opera.com/dragonfly/blog/
>>>>>>>> The latest Dragonfly is dated Dec-01-2009 at the repos.
>>>>>>>> https://dragonfly.opera.com/app/zips/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, doesn't appear to be a top priority any more does it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ??Latest is less than a month old,Dec 1,before that Nov 26,Sep
>>>>>> 9,Sep 2... seems fairly steady.
>>>>>
>>>>> The forum is pretty darned active too. This project isn't
>>>>> abandoned in any sense of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We still don't have it. When and how was it first introduced Craig?
>>>
>>> More importantly, you still enjoy fishing.
>>>
>>> toodles,
>>
>> No Craig...you and Q are so busy trying to pick a fight you miss the
>> main attraction.
>
> That's a lot of smoke & mirrors to avoid the fact that you misspoke.
> You wrote:
>
>> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
>
> It's not.
>
> Now you can shuck & jive & bob & weave all you want but, in the end BB
> your post was factually wrong. Not "you're wrong," BB. Just the
> particular post. No need to get your panties in a twist, BB.
> Everyone makes mistaqes.
>
I said "it /looks/ like they abandoned it"... because of the lack of
development for two years...and I explained why I said such. If you
don't like my choice of words...tough shit.
Stephen Wolstenholme
<REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kinda looks to me like they abandoned it for 2 years after which such a
>dramatic publicity stunt then petered out. Is it dead? Nope, not yet
>anyway.
It looks like an attempt at clever marketing that went wrong. I've
done the same thing myself so I now leave marketing to somebody else.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Neural network applications, help and support.
Bear Bottoms
news:817lj59qdgvj5hhc2...@4ax.com:
>>Kinda looks to me like they abandoned it for 2 years after which such a
>>dramatic publicity stunt then petered out. Is it dead? Nope, not yet
>>anyway.
>
> It looks like an attempt at clever marketing that went wrong. I've
> done the same thing myself so I now leave marketing to somebody else.
>
> Steve
>
Ha, and I'll bet that isn't the same marketing team Opera uses. Opera
made the best browser for many years. Severe marketing mistakes almost
killed them and they continue to make mistakes.
Had they followed through and provided a stable version of Dragonfly in
Oct 08 rather than virtually abandon development for over two years and
still have not produced a stable version...oh well. They had to have
abandoned serious development or if they did not, they have the wrong
developers working on it.
Craig
> If you don't like my choice of words...
<shrug>
--
-Craig
N4469P
> No Craig...you and Q are so busy trying to pick a fight you miss the
> main attraction.
imajin that
Bear Bottoms
september.org:
> On 12/29/2009 04:06 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>> If you don't like my choice of words...
>
> <shrug>
>
Crawl away...
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091228204...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CEFCA79C531be...@69.16.185.250>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> >> news:20091228192...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >>
> >> > In <news:Xns9CEFBDDF0C200be...@69.16.185.250>,
> >> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:20091228175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In <news:Xns9CEFB3BF3589Bbe...@69.16.185.247>,
> >> >> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Thomas Stevens <tste...@nospam.net> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:hhbdm2$o80$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/736c74ed994
> >> >> >> > ab516>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Looks to me like they abandoned it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What makes it look that way to you? Just curious.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, I suppose it could stay in Alpha forever eh. Alpha4 ?
> >> >
> >> > I was curious about what makes it look to you as though it's
> >> > abandoned. You don't have to say if you don't want to, of
> >> > course.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, I thought you would be able to perceive what I meant by my
> >> comment. Guess not. I'll help...Alpha4...no urgency there is it,
> >> certainly doesn't seem to be a high priority considering the hype
> >> last year and the mystery of the introduction.
> >
> > No, no, I was asking what made it seem *abandoned* to you, not what
> > makes it seem to you that the ongoing development isn't urgent
> > enough. Perhaps "abandoned" isn't what you meant in the first place?
>
> Nope...looking like they abandoned it is what I meant.
Oh.
> That you can't comprehend this isn't my problem..
I was just asking out of curiosity about what made it seem abandoned
to you. You still don't have to answer if you still don't want to, of
course.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091229172...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
You obviously cannot read and you are also obviously trolling. I thought
I would point out the obvious.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
> news:hhc17q$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
[about Opera's Dragonfly]
> > This project isn't abandoned in any sense of the word.
>
> We still don't have it.
Anybody using a current version of Opera has it, though.
> When and how was it first introduced Craig?
They first shipped with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008. It has
shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few features are
added with each release.
They still advertise it on their browser features page,
<http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they did
for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
<http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
> ...you and Q are so busy trying to pick a fight you miss the main
> attraction.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight and I haven't fought with you about
Dragonfly even a little bit. I don't know why anyone would want to
fight about a web development debugger and know what's got you so
worked up about it.
> Q, you actually think they have worked on this actively for two years
> and it is still in Alpha???
Yes and yes.
> I do not.
Out of curiosity, why do you not think so?
Thomas Stevens
> Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
> news:hhe554$5lo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 12/29/2009 03:18 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> Craig<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:hhdbad$j2m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2009 02:44 AM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>> Craig<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:hhc17q$j2t$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/28/2009 07:32 PM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:07:37 +0000, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave<nodle...@fuse.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:7c141$4b396e9a$4831158c$29...@FUSE.NET:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:06:42 +0000, Thomas Stevens
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What happened to Opera Dragonfly?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.comp.freeware/ms
>>>>>>>>>> g/736c74e d9 94 ab516>
What I don't understand about this Dragonfly thing is it looked
like the next big thing when you posted about it and said it was
gonna be enormous.
I was waiting. Never heard any more.
Now - I look back. what happened? Where's this thing which made you
so excited? Still not clear what got delivered.
�Ari�
i mean imagine that
Bear Bottoms
news:20091229211...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> I wasn't trying to pick a fight and I haven't fought with you about
> Dragonfly even a little bit. I don't know why anyone would want to
> fight about a web development debugger and know what's got you so
> worked up about it.
You fool no one.
N4469P
cocaine
duh
N4469P
> '�Ari�' wrote thus:
> I knew it was you, 'cos I was eavesdropping on your G2 cellphone.
> imajin that!
then call off the whores for me will ya?
N4469P
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091229211...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
>> I wasn't trying to pick a fight and I haven't fought with you about
>> Dragonfly even a little bit. I don't know why anyone would want to
>> fight about a web development debugger and know what's got you so
>> worked up about it.
>
> You fool no one.
except u of corse
duh
Bob Adkins
>You don't need tab groups - just middle-click on a folder and all the
>contained tabs open (this is true for all browsers except Opera)
I know that, but the open tabs don't automatically close. Only FF and
Maxthon have that feature.
Chrome doesn't have search aliases either. I'm hoping ChromePlus will
add those features.
�Ari�
ya call that a spelling mistake?
N4469P
> 'N4469P' wrote thus:
> I believe they're in Berlin at CCC keeping the boys amused!
bills coming back *not* amusing.
N4469P
> I wasn't trying to pick a fight
lie
N4469P
i meant lie down
N4469P
up down upside down the fukker Q is a liar
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091229211...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > I wasn't trying to pick a fight and I haven't fought with you about
> > Dragonfly even a little bit. I don't know why anyone would want to
> > fight about a web development debugger and know what's got you so
> > worked up about it.
Was supposed to say "don't know what's got you so worked up".
> You fool no one.
Good, but you've (accidentally?) snipped the information I posted in
order not to fool anyone.
They first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008. It
has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
features are added with each release.
They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
Bear Bottoms
news:20091230161...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> They first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008. It
> has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
> features are added with each release.
>
And after two years we are now at Alpha4...oh yeah. Stuff it Q.
»Q«
hummingbird <hummingbír...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> '»Q«' wrote thus:
It's a shame you keep reading every one of my posts, despite your
longstanding claim that you've killfiled me. If you don't want help
from me, the folks in the Hamster newsgroups could explain to you how
to use it to actually killfile. Good luck!
> you would do better attending to your problem of hosting downloads of
> unlawful PL.ISOs:
Could you explain the thing about the alleged international
criminal conspiracy to distribute good freeware? I never tire of
hearing your expert legal opinions.
[snip multiple links to <http://downloads.remarqs.net/pl/>]
I asked you several times to link to the main page, so that people will
see the stuff about not using multiple connections. Any chance you'll
stop trying to cause denial of service or are you too scared people
will read my index page?
Bear Bottoms
news:20091230185...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
I'll host the files for you if you have a bandwidth issue.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091230161...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > They first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August
> > 2008. It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then.
> > A few features are added with each release.
>
> And after two years we are now at Alpha4...oh yeah.
Dragonfly 0.7b4 is the version that shipped with Opera 10.10. It's
very good, but I tend to use Firebug instead. How does Chrome's Web
Inspector compare to them?
> Stuff it Q.
You asked how and when Opera's Dragonfly was introduced and I gave you
the straight answer. I'm tempted to ask you why the answer upsets you
so, but I that might also inexplicably upset you.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091230193...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> You asked how and when Opera's Dragonfly was introduced and I gave you
> the straight answer. I'm tempted to ask you why the answer upsets you
> so, but I that might also inexplicably upset you.
>
Doesn't upset me at all. I just don't like the games you and Craig play.
It was introduced as I posted after Craig did not answer the
question...facts of history.
Your answer is vague and designed to elude the issue...which is after two
years Dragonfly is still in Alpha. Not the kind of development one would
expect from the initial dramatic hints of a super secret project that was
supposed to be offered to the public by Oct08, and yet it is still in
Alpha after two years. Either they abandoned determined development of
the program(s) or have the wrong development team on it.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091230193...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> How does Chrome's Web
> Inspector compare to them?
>
I haven't used it enough yet to be able to answer that question.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091230193...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CF1A991B5014be...@69.16.185.247>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Stuff it Q.
> >
> > You asked how and when Opera's Dragonfly was introduced and I gave
> > you the straight answer. I'm tempted to ask you why the answer
> > upsets you so, but I that might also inexplicably upset you.
>
> Doesn't upset me at all.
You accidentally snipped the context, in which you were so upset you
told me to "stuff it".
> It was introduced as I posted after Craig did not answer the
> question...facts of history.
You're upset because I answered your question instead of Craig? It's
really tough to understand what makes you upset and why.
> Your answer is vague
Here are the question and the "vague" answer again, verbatim:
-----
> > When and how was it first introduced Craig?
>
> They first shipped with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008. It has
> shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few features
> are added with each release.
>
> They still advertise it on their browser features page,
> <http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they did
> for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
-----
Which parts of the answer do you find to be vague?
> and designed to elude the issue...which is after two years Dragonfly
> is still in Alpha.
That wasn't an issue you even mentioned when asking the question you
feel my answer was designed to elude.
FWIW, since it upsets you that I don't argue with you about it, I don't
have an issue with the alpha status of Dragonfly's ongoing
development. When you say that it's in alpha, you're right right
right. Does that help?
I'd asked you about what made you think that it had been abandoned, not
about whether the ongoing development is in alpha. I still don't know
what made you think it had been abandoned, and you still don't have to
answer if you still don't want to.
> Not the kind of development one would expect from the initial
> dramatic hints of a super secret project
I didn't see any signs of it being a "super secret project"; as you
know, Opera generally mentions their projects underway without saying
what they are yet. It drives some bloggers crazy, which I'm sure
Opera's intent, and a few Opera fans get caught up in it. I
don't find it particularly dramatic.
> that was supposed to be offered to the public by Oct08,
I didn't pay any attention to it at all until they released it to the
public, a couple of months before that target date.
> and yet it is still in Alpha after two years.
Yup, you're right right right -- it's at 0.7b4 as of Opera 10.10.
> Either they abandoned determined development of the program(s) or
> have the wrong development team on it.
What do you think the development team is doing wrong, given the amount
of progress over the last year and a half and the current state of the
latest release?
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091230185...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > [snip multiple links to <http://downloads.remarqs.net/pl/>]
> >
> > I asked you several times to link to the main page, so that people
> > will see the stuff about not using multiple connections. Any
> > chance you'll stop trying to cause denial of service or are you too
> > scared people will read my index page?
>
> I'll host the files for you if you have a bandwidth issue.
You'd be hosting them for other people, not for me.
There's no bandwidth issue, though there is very rarely an issue with
someone trying to make hundreds of concurrent connections. My host had
to put a lid on that at the time of the release of the 2007 ISO (I
think it was); for a little while, there were tens of thousands of
connections per minute, which was giving their routing software
trouble. I declined the other option they gave me, which was to pay a
lot more money for a dedicated server.
N4469P
> I'll host the files
the asswipe emerges. nice cohort you have there h'bird.
Bear Bottoms
news:20091230210...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> Yup, you're right right right
Now, what is your point in this thread again?
N4469P
>>If you don't want help
>>from me, the folks in the Hamster newsgroups could explain to you how
>>to use it to actually killfile. Good luck!
>
> Rotfl.
ya know so,me peple keep showing their ass to the blizzard in the dead
of winter.
»Q«
through all the stuff about hummingbird's trouble with filtering.
In <news:7dc34f68bf34e15b...@aracari.127.0.0.1>,
hummingbird <hummingbír...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> '»Q«' wrote thus:
>
> >In <news:9322e3bf24e24369...@aracari.127.0.0.1>,
> >hummingbird <hummingbír...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> '»Q«' wrote thus:
> >> you would do better attending to your problem of hosting downloads
> >> of unlawful PL.ISOs:
> >
> >Could you explain the thing about the alleged international
> >criminal conspiracy to distribute good freeware? I never tire of
> >hearing your expert legal opinions.
>
> There's no need for me to repeat it all here.
Oh, well.
> BTW: it's a very popular download, including by "Cyveillance" - the
> well known organisation who investigate Internet crime!
You've said you banned them -- were they connecting to your computer to
investigate you?
> Examples:
> credit card fraud and copywrite violations of video/software etc.
Did they find anything interesting on your computer?
> > <http://downloads.remarqs.net/pl/
>
> Never go round the houses when you can go directly to the source
> for your dose of unlawful PL.ISOs: http://preview.xrl.in/42sc
That redirects to <http://toucano.plus.com:8080/>. I'm surprised
you've identified toucano.plus.com as the source of something
unlawful.
[snip a lot more links to <http://downloads.remarqs.net/pl/>]
> >I asked you several times to link to the main page,
>
> See above. I don't want to link to any old main page, who knows
> what I might find there!
If you're really that scared, you should probably recheck the links
you're using.
> OTOH you cannot prevent ANYBODY from quoting direct download
> links to your unlawfully hosted PL.ISO files. They don't even have
> to inform you of it. The URLs exist, period <shrug>.
I haven't tried to prevent you from doing anything, just asked you to
be a decent netizen.
> If the matter concerns you so much, you might comply with the
> reasonable request made of you to provide the material evidence
> that every program on your ISOs is fully authorised by the authors
> of the programs. That would bring the matter to a rapid end :-)
You wouldn't stop being an asshat even if I did all your searching for
you, so I'll continue to decline to help you out with it.
> >or are you too scared people will read my index page?
>
> Scared? Me?
You certainly seem scared of it.
> Rotfl.
And, as hummingbird rolls around on the floor, we switch to his Hamster
problems:
> >It's a shame you keep reading every one of my posts, despite your
> >longstanding claim that you've killfiled me.
>
> Why is it "a shame"?
I was expressing concern about continuing inability to filter my posts.
> Do you believe that people who read your posts are shameful?
Some of them are.
> >you keep reading every one of my posts,
>
> That is wholly untrue <sigh>.
I can't recall the last time I posted to a thread here without you
replying -- can you?
> I do not "keep reading every one of your posts" (reading the
> occasional one, once, is quite sufficient thanks :-) ).
You read every one.
> >despite your
> >longstanding claim that you've killfiled me.
>
> That is also untrue <another sigh>.
It's true, but you'll have trouble searching for the post in which you
made the claim because you use XNA. Shorty after you made the
killfiling claim, you switched to saying you filter my posts, yet you
continue to read all my posts.
> In case you've forgotten, I use Hamster and I have explained
> to you that all $Pricelessware Cultists are *filtered*. I've also
> explained to you ad nauseam (<another sigh>) what that actually
> means in Hamster. It is not the same as "killfiling" as understood
> in most news clients. Even so, you repeatedly assert it is
> <another sigh>.
You've explained that you filter the posts then pore through the filter
logs to find them all so you can read them. I've pointed out what an
inefficient and silly system you're using, but you don't seem to
understand that Hamster can help you do things in a sensible way.
> There's some good Hamster Help here if you're interested:
> http://home.kpn.nl/ojb-hamster/EnWIP/EnWeb/html/file3vao.htm
>
> >If you don't want help
> >from me, the folks in the Hamster newsgroups could explain to you how
> >to use it to actually killfile. Good luck!
>
> Rotfl.
You spend a lot of time rolling around on the floor.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091230210...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > Yup, you're right right right
>
> Now, what is your point in this thread again?
It was a question, not a point. Given that you're right right right
about the fact that development of Dragonfly is still going on, I
found it curious that you think it seems abandoned. You still don't
have to answer the question if you still don't want to.
After that, I guess I did make a point of clearing up any confusion
that had been caused in the thread, by posting this:
Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008.
It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
features are added with each release.
They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
Bear Bottoms
news:20091231175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>> > Yup, you're right right right
>>
>> Now, what is your point in this thread again?
>
> It was a question, not a point.
> After that, I guess I did make a point...
So you did or didn't make a point?
Franklin
> Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:d5dij5dbcfcp0i3o1...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:58:11 GMT, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>After using Firefox for years, and finding it more and more of a
>>>'lump' and Opera which is fast, but limited, I have found that
>>>the latest Google Chrome beta does what I need. However I cannot
>>>find a newsgroup.
>>
>> I've been using Chrome beta since it first became available. In
>> my opinion Chrome is the best browser. You can get at all the
>> discussion groups using the Chrome help. There are no NNTP
>> groups. You won't find the help and discussion groups of much
>> use because Chrome users rarely need any help. Chrome just
>> works.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> Start Chrome...open a few tabs...start a utility like Process
> Explorer, etc...Why is there a dozen or so instances of Chrome
> running, using mega megabytes of memory? None of the other browsers
> exhibit that behavior. Chrome...no thanks.
Those instances are Chrome way of isolating processes in case one crashes.
<http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/4>
It's not be such a bad thing although IBM recently went in the opposite
direction and discarded process access groups last year on its "i Series".
(It had championed them in midrange systems for two decades).
<http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/topic/rzahg/rzaq9.p
df> Page 45
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20091231175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> >> > Yup, you're right right right
> >>
> >> Now, what is your point in this thread again?
> >
> > It was a question, not a point. Given that you're right right
> > right about the fact that development of Dragonfly is still going
> > on, I found it curious that you think it seems abandoned. You
> > still don't have to answer the question if you still don't want to.
> >
> > After that, I guess I did make a point of clearing up any confusion
> > that had been caused in the thread, by posting this:
> >
> > Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August
> > 2008. It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then.
> > A few features are added with each release.
> >
> > They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
> > <http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they
> > did for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
> > <http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
>
> So you did or didn't make a point?
For the answer to that question, see
<news:20091231175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net>.
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101153...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
or I could go read a book :)
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100101153...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CF2B9C3CD294be...@69.16.185.247>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> >> news:20091231175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >>
> >>> It was a question, not a point. Given that you're right right
> >> > right about the fact that development of Dragonfly is still going
> >> > on, I found it curious that you think it seems abandoned. You
> >> > still don't have to answer the question if you still don't want
> >> > to.
> >> >
> >> > After that, I guess I did make a point of clearing up any
> >> > confusion that had been caused in the thread, by posting this:
> >> >
> >> > Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August
> >> > 2008. It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then.
> >> > A few features are added with each release.
> >> >
> >> > They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
> >> > <http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as
> >> > they did for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
> >> > <http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
> >>
> >> So you did or didn't make a point?
> >
> > For the answer to that question, see
> > <news:20091231175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net>.
>
> or I could go read a book :)
Perhaps you could. Once you're done, you might want to answer this
question, which you (accidentally?) skipped earlier:
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101164...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>> Either they abandoned determined development of the program(s) or
>> have the wrong development team on it.
>
> What do you think the development team is doing wrong, given the amount
> of progress over the last year and a half and the current state of the
> latest release?
>
Q, are you stupid or just being argumentative. My position has been well
explained. It has been two years since they used a dramatic publicity
ploy to advertise/introduce Dragonfly and it is still in Alpha.
So which is it? Stupid or argumentative?
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100101164...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> >> Either they abandoned determined development of the program(s) or
> >> have the wrong development team on it.
> >
> > What do you think the development team is doing wrong, given the
> > amount of progress over the last year and a half and the current
> > state of the latest release?
>
> Q, are you stupid or just being argumentative.
I'm asking what you think is wrong with the active development of
some pretty good (IMO) freeware, since I'm sure you wouldn't denigrate
the development team without some reason.
> My position has been well explained. It has been two years since they
> used a dramatic publicity ploy to advertise/introduce Dragonfly and
> it is still in Alpha.
If you mean that one blog post, I still don't find it dramatic. But
that's irrelevant, since I'm not asking you about hype, but rather
development.
If the only thing you think is "wrong" with it is that it's labeled
0.7alpha4, that's fine, but you seem to think that something is wrong
with their ongoing *development* of Dragonfly. In what way do you find
the several Dragonfly releases so far to be lacking? What would you
like to see in their next version?
> So which is it? Stupid or argumentative?
I don't know whether your thing about the alpha status is either one
of those, but again, that's not what I'm asking you about.
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101173...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> I don't know whether your thing about the alpha status is either one
> of those, but again, that's not what I'm asking you about.
>
Argumentative then. Do you know what Alpha software is?
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100101173...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >> My position has been well explained.
> >> So which is it? Stupid or argumentative?
> > I don't know whether your thing about the alpha status is either one
> > of those, but again, that's not what I'm asking you about.
>
> Argumentative then.
In that case, good luck finding someone who wants to argue with you
about it.
You (accidentally?) skipped my question regarding what you think is
wrong with Dragonfly's ongoing development:
If the only thing you think is "wrong" with it is that it's labeled
0.7alpha4, that's fine, but you seem to think that something is wrong
with their ongoing *development* of Dragonfly. In what way do you find
the several Dragonfly releases so far to be lacking? What would you
like to see in their next version?
By the way, I'm asking what you think is wrong with the active
development of some pretty good (IMO) freeware, since I found your
denigration of the development team curious.
> Do you know what Alpha software is?
Uncapitalized, it usually refers to software that's undergoing
internal testing, unreleased to end users. Of course, that doesn't
apply to Dragonfly, which has seen several end-user releases over the
last year and a half; that's one of many reasons I'm surprised you
keep bringing "Alpha" up instead of answering any Dragonfly questions.
I thought the August 2008 public introduction of Dragonfly was well
before you abandoned Opera for Firefox, but if you've never used
any of the Dragonfly releases I'll quit asking you questions about what
you think is wrong with it.
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101200...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> Uncapitalized, it usually refers to software that's undergoing
> internal testing, unreleased to end users. Of course, that doesn't
> apply to Dragonfly, which has seen several end-user releases over the
> last year and a half; that's one of many reasons I'm surprised you
> keep bringing "Alpha" up instead of answering any Dragonfly questions.
>
Wikipedia:
"The alpha's build of the software is the build to the internal software
testers, that is, people different from the software engineers, sometimes
to the public, but usually internal to the organization or community that
develops the software. In a rush to market, more and more companies are
engaging external customers or value-chain partners in their alpha
testing phase. This allows more extensive usability testing during the
alpha phase.
In the first phase of testing, developers generally test the software
using white box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using
black box or gray box techniques, by another dedicated testing team,
sometimes concurrently. Moving to black box testing inside the
organization is known as alpha release.
In software testing terminology alpha testing is done by the client in
the presence of the tester or developers and the test environment is not
open for the end user."
If you think the software is so good, why then do they not think so? If
they thought so, they would at least take it or some of it to beta at the
least. Why do you think they keep it in alpha testing?
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101200...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> Uncapitalized, it usually refers to software that's undergoing
> internal testing, unreleased to end users. Of course, that doesn't
> apply to Dragonfly, which has seen several end-user releases over the
> last year and a half; that's one of many reasons I'm surprised you
> keep bringing "Alpha" up instead of answering any Dragonfly questions.
>
BTW, your statement above is incorrect. Are you trying to say you know of
Dragonfly releases in beta, release candidate, RTM or GA?
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, that clearly doesn't apply in this case -- they ship Dragonfly
to all their browser end users and have for well over a year. And
again, that's one of many reasons I'm surprised you keep bringing
"Alpha" up instead of answering any Dragonfly questions.
You've snipped all the questions about Dragonfly again, and I don't
think it's worthwhile to discuss your obsession with the alpha label
any further, so I've snipped your questions about the word.
I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out instead of
relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its development
team. And again, all they have to do to check it out is to download
any Opera release from the past year and a half.
Bear Bottoms
news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out instead of
> relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its development
> team. And again, all they have to do to check it out is to download
> any Opera release from the past year and a half.
>
You fail to mention that you will be testing alpha software. How can you
say alpha doesn't apply when the software is in alpha status as described
by the developers themselves. Well, I guess you can say it, but it is
wrong.
You avoided the question, what parts of the Dragonfly tools are out of
alpha?
Nicodemus
news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
good idea. thanks
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out
> > instead of relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its
> > development team. And again, all they have to do to check it out
> > is to download any Opera release from the past year and a half.
>
> You fail to mention that you will be testing alpha software.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times that the latest version is
0.7 alpha-4. Also, in the text I quoted but you snipped, the alpha
label was mentioned.
> How can you say alpha doesn't apply when the software is in alpha
> status as described by the developers themselves.
I didn't -- I only pointed that the usual meaning of alpha doesn't
apply to a product that ships to every one of their end-users.
> Well, I guess you can say it, but it is wrong.
When you try to put words in my mouth, they often turn out to be
wrong. Here's some stuff I *did* say, and you'll note that it's not
wrong:
Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008.
It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
features are added with each release.
They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
<http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they did
for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
<http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
> You avoided the question, what parts of the Dragonfly tools are out
> of alpha?
I expect they won't stop labeling any of it alpha until the Scope
protocol is final or close to final. I think they're now in the
process of moving to version 5 of the protocol.
As a fun game for you, see how far you have to dig down in Opera's
browser GUI to find the magic word "alpha" applied to Dragonfly, if you
can find it at all.
Bear Bottoms
news:20100102164...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> In <news:Xns9CF3DCCDF4540be...@69.16.185.250>,
> Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
>> news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>>
>> > I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out
>> > instead of relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its
>> > development team. And again, all they have to do to check it out
>> > is to download any Opera release from the past year and a half.
>>
>> You fail to mention that you will be testing alpha software.
>
> I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times that the latest version is
> 0.7 alpha-4. Also, in the text I quoted but you snipped, the alpha
> label was mentioned.
>
In your above paragraph, you encouraged people to try Dragonfly but
failed to mention it is alpha software...people who are not following
this thread may be mislead into thinking you think it is not alpha. I
wouldn't recommend anyone to use alpha software seriously...especially
without making sure I tell them it is alpha.
>> How can you say alpha doesn't apply when the software is in alpha
>> status as described by the developers themselves.
>
> I didn't -- I only pointed that the usual meaning of alpha doesn't
> apply to a product that ships to every one of their end-users.
>
Yes you did. You said it doesn't apply in this case. If you read the
definition I posted, it allows instances where alpha software is shipped
to the public. You need to bone up.
>> Well, I guess you can say it, but it is wrong.
>
> When you try to put words in my mouth, they often turn out to be
> wrong. Here's some stuff I *did* say, and you'll note that it's not
> wrong:
>
> Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008.
> It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
> features are added with each release.
That has nothing to do with the point of contention....and you know
it...merely a smoke screen.
>
> They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
> <http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they did
> for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
That has nothing to do with the point of contention...and you know
it...merely a smoke screen.
>
>> You avoided the question, what parts of the Dragonfly tools are out
>> of alpha?
>
> I expect they won't stop labeling any of it alpha until the Scope
> protocol is final or close to final. I think they're now in the
> process of moving to version 5 of the protocol.
That is not how it works. You think they will go from alpha straight to
release for marketing? I think not as usually they go to beta.
>
> As a fun game for you, see how far you have to dig down in Opera's
> browser GUI to find the magic word "alpha" applied to Dragonfly, if you
> can find it at all.
>
If it is difficult to realize that Dragonfly is alpha software, then
Opera is misleading end-users. I am not going to install Opera to play
your silly game as it has little to do with the point of contention.
The point I made was it looked like to me Opera had abandoned Dragonfly
because it is still alpha software after two years. If the developers are
rigorously developing the software, they have the wrong developers on the
project. My bet is they weren't so interested in speedy development and
abandoned serious interest in doing so...even though they made a dramatic
publicity ploy introducing it. They said Dragonfly would be ready by
Oct.08. Alpha software is not ready for the public...and it is now
January 2010 and it is still in alpha.
»Q«
Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:20100102164...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>
> > In <news:Xns9CF3DCCDF4540be...@69.16.185.250>,
> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
> >> news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> >>
> >> > I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out
> >> > instead of relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its
> >> > development team. And again, all they have to do to check it out
> >> > is to download any Opera release from the past year and a half.
> >>
> >> You fail to mention that you will be testing alpha software.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times that the latest
> > version is 0.7 alpha-4. Also, in the text I quoted but you
> > snipped, the alpha label was mentioned.
> >
> In your above paragraph, you encouraged people to try Dragonfly but
> failed to mention it is alpha software...people who are not following
> this thread may be mislead into thinking you think it is not alpha.
People who are not reading this thread won't read that paragraph, since
it's part of the this thread. People who are reading the thread
already know what I think of your obsession with "alpha" as it
pertains to Dragonfly.
> I wouldn't recommend anyone to use alpha software seriously.
"I wouldn't recommend" is a lot different from saying that it seems
abandoned or that there's something wrong with the development team.
Based on using the software, I would recommend checking out Dragonfly to
anybody doing debugging, but I wasn't trying to convince you to
recommend it.
> >> How can you say alpha doesn't apply when the software is in alpha
> >> status as described by the developers themselves.
> >
> > I didn't -- I only pointed that the usual meaning of alpha doesn't
> > apply to a product that ships to every one of their end-users.
>
> Yes you did. You said it doesn't apply in this case.
No, I said that the usual meaning doesn't.
> If you read the definition I posted, it allows instances where alpha
> software is shipped to the public. You need to bone up.
You're confused about the "definition" you posted, and I don't intend
to spend several dozen posts clearing it up for you.
> >> You avoided the question, what parts of the Dragonfly tools are out
> >> of alpha?
> >
> > I expect they won't stop labeling any of it alpha until the Scope
> > protocol is final or close to final. I think they're now in the
> > process of moving to version 5 of the protocol.
>
> That is not how it works. You think they will go from alpha straight
> to release for marketing? I think not as usually they go to beta.
I didn't say they'd go straight to 1.0, so your question about that
seems strange. You'll need to follow the ongoing, active development
of Dragonfly if you want to see how it goes.
I hope that once Scope is released as an open protocol, it will be
something that Firebug and other debuggers can really make use of.
> > As a fun game for you, see how far you have to dig down in Opera's
> > browser GUI to find the magic word "alpha" applied to Dragonfly, if
> > you can find it at all.
>
> If it is difficult to realize that Dragonfly is alpha software, then
> Opera is misleading end-users. I am not going to install Opera to
> play your silly game as it has little to do with the point of
> contention.
I'm surprised you've made so many denigrating comments about the
software and its development team without using the software. My
initial question about how you arrive at your conclusions seems
answered now, though, so thanks. It may help some people as they read
your future opinions about software.
> The point I made was it looked like to me Opera had abandoned
> Dragonfly because it is still alpha software after two years.
Hopefully that part of it has been cleared up for most readers by the
facts you personally find irrelevant:
Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008.
It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
features are added with each release.
They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
Bear Bottoms
news:20100102175...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
> In <news:Xns9CF4AFA61D90Fbe...@69.16.185.250>,
> Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
>> news:20100102164...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>>
>> > In <news:Xns9CF3DCCDF4540be...@69.16.185.250>,
>> > Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <box...@gmx.net> wrote in
>> >> news:20100101221...@bellgrove.remarqs.net:
>> >>
>> >> > I'd encourage anyone interested in Dragonfly to check it out
>> >> > instead of relying on your unexplained opinions about it and its
>> >> > development team. And again, all they have to do to check it
>> >> > out is to download any Opera release from the past year and a
>> >> > half.
>> >>
>> >> You fail to mention that you will be testing alpha software.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure I've mentioned several times that the latest
>> > version is 0.7 alpha-4. Also, in the text I quoted but you
>> > snipped, the alpha label was mentioned.
>> >
>> In your above paragraph, you encouraged people to try Dragonfly but
>> failed to mention it is alpha software...people who are not following
>> this thread may be mislead into thinking you think it is not alpha.
>
> People who are not reading this thread won't read that paragraph,
> since it's part of the this thread. People who are reading the thread
> already know what I think of your obsession with "alpha" as it
> pertains to Dragonfly.
It is not an obsession, it is a point of fact. Dragonfly is alpha
software.
>
>> I wouldn't recommend anyone to use alpha software seriously.
>
> "I wouldn't recommend" is a lot different from saying that it seems
> abandoned or that there's something wrong with the development team.
>
I don't think there is anything wrong with the development team or I
wouldn't have come to the conclusion they virtually abandoned serious
development of the software. If they didn't abandon serious development
of the software, then there is something wrong with the development
team. I'm sure you are able to grasp this, as I have maintained that
position throughout...therefore you are being obtuse.
> Based on using the software, I would recommend checking out Dragonfly
> to anybody doing debugging, but I wasn't trying to convince you to
> recommend it.
You should be sure to tell them it is alpha software.
>
>> >> How can you say alpha doesn't apply when the software is in alpha
>> >> status as described by the developers themselves.
>> >
>> > I didn't -- I only pointed that the usual meaning of alpha doesn't
>> > apply to a product that ships to every one of their end-users.
>>
>> Yes you did. You said it doesn't apply in this case.
>
> No, I said that the usual meaning doesn't.
There you go again...and you just said it doesn't apply again. Read the
definition and you will see where you are wrong. The software is alpha.
>
>> If you read the definition I posted, it allows instances where alpha
>> software is shipped to the public. You need to bone up.
>
> You're confused about the "definition" you posted, and I don't intend
> to spend several dozen posts clearing it up for you.
It is simple words...and clearly debunks your erroneous idea that alpha
software is not sometimes released to the public. The definition clearly
states that it sometimes is.
>
>> >> You avoided the question, what parts of the Dragonfly tools are
>> >> out of alpha?
>> >
>> > I expect they won't stop labeling any of it alpha until the Scope
>> > protocol is final or close to final. I think they're now in the
>> > process of moving to version 5 of the protocol.
>>
>> That is not how it works. You think they will go from alpha straight
>> to release for marketing? I think not as usually they go to beta.
>
> I didn't say they'd go straight to 1.0, so your question about that
> seems strange. You'll need to follow the ongoing, active development
> of Dragonfly if you want to see how it goes.
Well you said it would stay in alph until final or close to
final...final is 1.0. So you are skipping a bit there...maybe because
your screws are loose and you can't admit you are wrong.
>
> I hope that once Scope is released as an open protocol, it will be
> something that Firebug and other debuggers can really make use of.
>
Me too. Hopefully in the next two years or so.
>> > As a fun game for you, see how far you have to dig down in Opera's
>> > browser GUI to find the magic word "alpha" applied to Dragonfly, if
>> > you can find it at all.
>>
>> If it is difficult to realize that Dragonfly is alpha software, then
>> Opera is misleading end-users. I am not going to install Opera to
>> play your silly game as it has little to do with the point of
>> contention.
>
> I'm surprised you've made so many denigrating comments about the
> software and its development team without using the software. My
> initial question about how you arrive at your conclusions seems
> answered now, though, so thanks. It may help some people as they read
> your future opinions about software.
I very rarely use alpha software if ever. I can't really think of an
instance where I did. It is a bad policy to do so. I'm very surprised
that Opera is allowing alpha software to be used. The terms of software
development are there for a reason...to ignore such is a breech.
>
>> The point I made was it looked like to me Opera had abandoned
>> Dragonfly because it is still alpha software after two years.
>
> Hopefully that part of it has been cleared up for most readers by the
> facts you personally find irrelevant:
>
> Opera first shipped Dragonfly with Opera 9.5 for PCs, in August 2008.
> It has shipped with every Opera browser release since then. A few
> features are added with each release.
You repeat yourself but leave out the important fact that they did so
with alpha software and are still doing so.
>
> They still advertise Dragonfly on their browser features page,
> <http://www.opera.com/browser/>, though not as prominently as they did
> for the Opera 9.5.x releases,
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20080822060848/http://www.opera.com/>.
>
This has nothing to do with the points of contention, but I do
understand you are trying to dig yourself out of your hole.
Mike Easter
> In software testing terminology alpha testing is done by the client in
> the presence of the tester or developers and the test environment is
not
> open for the end user." <wiki>
>
> If you think the software is so good, why then do they not think so?
If
> they thought so, they would at least take it or some of it to beta at
> the least. Why do you think they keep it in alpha testing?
I think the derogatory characterization of the official alpha status and
alluding to/ calling it/ abandonware isn't an accurate characterization
of what is going on - progress - with DragonFly and Scope - STP.
Here's one example in the forum:
http://dev.opera.com/forums/topic/285331 - August 2009, - How to make
Dragonfly better than FireBug - ... That said, I am glad to see that
Dragonfly is now much better than it was in the past. .... I've
discussed 1 and 2 above, and it is already a priority for the team once
the current work is finished porting Opera Dragonfly to the new version
of the Scope protocol which is coming in a Core release after Opera 10.
--
Mike Easter
Bear Bottoms
news:7qa7nl...@mid.individual.net:
I'm not doing anything but calling it as it is...a dramatic publicity
advertisement in Feb08. Software supposedly ready in Oct08. and two
years later it is still in alpha. You can make of that whatever you
want...I can too.
John Fitzsimons
>In <news:Xns9CF1C77F3BC3Bbe...@69.16.185.250>,
>Bear Bottoms <REMOVEbea...@gmail.com> wrote:
< snip >
>> I'll host the files for you if you have a bandwidth issue.
>You'd be hosting them for other people, not for me.
< snip >
Agreed, but it is however IMO a very generous offer. Storage
and bandwidth generally cost money. You deserve credit for
your contribution. Bear deserves credit if he does the same.
He, of course, doesn't need anyone's "okay" if he wants to
host the CDs as well. It would probably benefit ACF readers
if you both provided the downloads.
Regards, John.