JS is actually harder to master and use than CSS is, in my opinion. I don't think people use JS menus because they're lazy. If nothing else, you want the menus to work right. I just don't think that navigation menus are one of those times. I don't care much for JS in general because I've seen what sick computers can do to it when I was still doing computer repairs and malware removal. It's also useful for some other purposes in those sorts of situations. The other functions you mentioned can also be completed without JS, but in those cases it usually does add some useful functionality that wouldn't be possible without it (for example, live-updating shipping costs or order totals when you add items to or delete items from a shopping cart). Most responsive sites use JavaScript menus even though they can be written using just relatively simple CSS. I'm talking specifically about navigation menus. Same with Microsnot and Apple too for that matter, I don't even feel like they are in competition with each other one's as bad as the other, and there's no real third choice. It feels like a monopoly and I resent that. But there doesn't seem to be an alternative, YouTube is where everybody puts their stuff. I would have no problem subscribing if I felt there were competitive alternatives and I was choosing my preferred one. Look, I understand I'm getting content for "free" and the ads are the price you pay. If you want to watch something without ads, now you need to subscribe. Well don't get me started on YouTube in general. I googled one topic one day out of curiosity unrelated to my own life, read one web page on the subject, and now I'm getting YouTube embedded ads for the merchant that runs that webpage non-stop, for weeks. ![]() Agree about JavaScript, I disable it almost universally and use it only when I must, but that seems pretty often.įor my iPad I just use the default Safari and never do banking or anything sensitive on the iPad, but I am very unhappy with the tracking. I started using Palemoon, probably because you recommended it, but I too am bothered by its nagging, so maybe I'll try Waterfox now too. ![]() If you're looking for a browser, it's worth checking out. Using Pale Moon, I frequently have to reload pages that use JavaScript menus in order for them to render properly. It also doesn't suffer from the slow JavaScript processing that is the one problem I hate about Pale Moon. One of the nice things about Waterfox is that because it disables the spyware that Mozilla has baked into recent Firefox versions, it's very fast and responsive. It also supports the old XUL and XPCOM add-ons that FF no longer supports and allows installation of unsigned add-ons, which could be a good or a bad thing depending on the user's degree of savvy. It focuses on privacy and removes the data-gathering, profiling, and telemetry functions of Firefox, among other capabilities I can live without (for example, Adobe DRM). It started as a fork of Firefox 38, but is no longer associated with Mozilla. In either case, you can also head to its GitHub page and explore more options to get it installed on your system.I've been using this for a couple of weeks, and it looks promising: Here’s how it looks like: cd waterfox-classic ![]() Once there, you can simply run it with a single command. If that doesn’t work, you can utilize the terminal and navigate to the extracted Waterfox folder. You can simply double-click on it to run start up the browser. Next, head on to the extracted folder and look for the “ Waterfox” file. Once downloaded, simply extract the file. So, you will have to download the archived package from its official download page.ĭepending on what edition (Current/Classic) you want – just download the file, which will be. Unlike other popular browsers, you don’t get a package to install.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |