Excellent. I look forward to the the spasms of nerd-rage that this will evoke.

(Reply) (Thread)

Of course, you can actually get it to work. You just need to download the source for the latest version of Firefox for Linux from the repository, and compile it backwards in either Esperanto or Klingon. Of course if you're using Ubuntu 64, the flash plugins won't work, but this is for security/licensing reasons and is marked "will not fix".

This could be fixed of course, but my associates and I have decided to spend out time instead reimplimenting a buggy, overcomplicated version of a Windows program that will replace the mature program that you're using in the repository. Of course, if you're not using a Linux system, a Linux user near you will be happy to come around and half install a non-functional Linux environment that you don't know how to use over the top of your current OS. You will then be instructed to RTFM. Don't take this too seriously, this is "Linux Humor", like "have you checked the permissions?" Even if there is a manual, your problem probably won't be in it.

Everyone should use Linux. It's not stupid or annoying like Windows.

Edited at 2008-11-15 12:40 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Who are you and how the fuck did you get into my brain?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's stupid and annoying in new, exciting ways.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I could have used that on a project a few years ago...

(Reply) (Thread)

A few years ago they had a point, and their users had shit old browsers that needed work-arounds. Nowadays this stuff just fecking works. If you can't grok it with CSS (and platform independent too) learn to serve coffee.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Bingo!

Awesome. I just won $10.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Wouldn't have bothered, until I remembered who's blog this is. 8-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Story of my life.

(Reply) (Thread)

Is there anyone who doesn't already know to do this? o_O

(Reply) (Thread)

I kinda refused to learn anything *new* about html after about 2000, so I use tables.

Bonus: My pages work on *everything*, even abandonware browsers.

(Reply) (Thread)

Good thing you don't use mobile browsers to test.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I do test on mobile browsers.

Surprise. It works.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What browsers did you test on?

Depending where you look, the top ten world wide manufacturers of mobile web browsers are:

Nokia
SonyEricsson
Motorola
Samsung
Apple
LG
RIM
Kyocera
Palm
HTC

(In that order.)

Nokia is #1 and is notoriously nasty. (I think I read something stating that the iPhone was #1 in the US which is very promising and makes life MUCH easier for testing since it is basically just like the desktop Safari.)

A spec I referenced in a previous anti-CSS/pro-tables thread with regards to mobile browsing states flatly that tables should not be used. If this is no longer accurate, I'd be happy to learn more:

http://baconmonkey.livejournal.com/657921.html?thread=2465025#t2465025

Mobile Web Developers Guide

Page 42:
Always Avoid Using Tables for Layout"


Doing QA on handsets for anything is labor intensive and exceptionally time consuming. There are just too many handsets, OSes, browsers, etc. out there.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've tested on Kyocera and Samsung. I've never had a Nokia with Internet access that didn't charge 15 cents a kilobyte or something, so I've never tested on those.

I think I'm gonna abandon tables for any future work, though. If they don't work on Nokia, then I just won't use 'em.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The problem is that there are just too many phones with too many OSes and too many browsers out there; unless you have a full staff of a QA team and a library of literally hundreds of handsets you just "never know".

If the mobile industry recommends to use CSS instead of tables for better compatibility, then I'm going to tend to lean with that. It also helps that it sticks to my conceptual hate of table layout (the concept of separation of content and layout seems like a no brainer to me), but I'm always happy to have my hate challenged through intelligent discourse.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I must admit, they have a point - their HTML source is admirably clear.

(Reply) (Thread)

I like the "sarcasm" tag, that's a nice touch.

Edited at 2008-11-15 04:40 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

And how they're using DIVs for positioning.

Seriously, if their Mac version doesn't run in System 7.5, I don't want it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The awful truth about "ever-advancing" software. YOU aren't supposed to really use that stuff - leave it to the overpaid "experts", and whatever you do, don't even try to do it the "old" way . . . :)

(Reply) (Thread)

That is awesome! I know the feeling.

(Reply) (Thread)

(Reply) (Thread)

Screw you, old man!

(Reply) (Thread)