[geeks] Dual Core Rules: your bugs will run twice as fast

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Joshua Boyd wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:33:29PM -0500, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>> Joshua Boyd wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:55:37AM -0500, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Of course, I see the same thing out of Firefox and Thunderbird on all
>>>> platforms.  Variations in exactly how they waste resources, but the end
>>>> result is generally the same.
>>>>
>>>> The sad thing is that everything else sucks worse.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I've heard good things about some of the Mac browsers, but I
>>>> haven't played with them much.
>>> I would say that Safari sucks approximately equally.  Apple claims that
>>> they are now going to get serious about cleaning it up and stablizing it
>>> though.  
>> Well, it's based on Konqueror or at least the engine in it, so I imagine it
>> has the same problems.
> 
> It appears that webkit (a fork of khtml) has had tons of feature work
> done to it (which sounds like it is possibly buggy), and the rate of
> stuff feeding back to konquor is slow. 

Feedback in the open source world is a lot slower than some acknowledge,
especially feedback regarding stability bugs and misfeatures.

Not that the commercial world is any better, but the open source world is full
of people bragging that it works out better, and rarely does it actually
demonstrate that in pragmatic reality.

> The reason I use konqueror, or I should say used konqueror, was because
> it was easier to have one web browser with flash and one without than it
> was to turn flash on and off in firefox (which I never actually figured
> out how to do without restarting).

I keep having problems with flash menus popping up under other elements.

The whole idea of a site dependent on Flash, or anything like it, is pretty
stupid anyway.

> That said, that reason for using konqueror ceased to be a current reason
> when I switched to a 64bit linux laptop (my thinkpad was stolen from its
> case as gated checked bagage, and the replacement was a C2D.  Naively I
> thought that 64bit linux would be a good idea.  So far I've found lots
> of inconvienience[0], and can't say for sure that I'm benefiting), and
> I've never gotten around to figuring out how to use 32bit plugins.  

Same here.

I was impressed with the speed of 64-bit Linux, but kept finding things that
wouldn't work well, and gave up on it.

It's not really the fault of Linux, but rather that so much software is not
64-bit ready, and you have the closed software that is 32-bit only.

I will say though, that I could use 64-bit Linux if I had to, while I found
64-bit Windows impossible to live with.


-- 
shannon           | It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way
                  | to spell a word.
                  |         -- Andrew Jackson