 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There has to be a way to stop a script that does
while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>
> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>
> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
What are you, Nelon?! :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>>
>> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>>
>> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
>
> What are you, Nelon?! :-P
Huh?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/13/2009 4:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>
> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>
> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
What taskbar???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>
> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>
> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
I discussed this with my brother once, and we agreed that a modal javascript
alert should only be within a tab. That way, something silly like that would
lock up all actions in that tab (except the close tab action), but wouldn't
affect other tabs.
We had this discussion back in 2003. I've made the recommendation before, but I
am yet to see any browser get this right.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reactor wrote:
> We had this discussion back in 2003. I've made the recommendation before,
> but I am yet to see any browser get this right.
>
Even Chrome, which has one process per tab, has window-modal alerts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What are you, Nelon?! :-P
>
> Huh?
He's a character in The Simpsons who pops up now and then, usually to
say "ha ha!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> What are you, Nelon?! :-P
>>
>> Huh?
>
> He's a character in The Simpsons who pops up now and then, usually to say
> "ha ha!"
If you'd actually written his name correctly (I had no clue either what you
were on about) it would have been quite funny.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/13/2009 3:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>
> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>
> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
>
And, here I was thinking you were talking about running Firefox under
MS-DOS. Silly me!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 10/13/2009 3:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>>
>> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>>
>> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
>>
>
> And, here I was thinking you were talking about running Firefox under
> MS-DOS. Silly me!
I remember a few years ago there was a PS3 hacking challenge. A guy set up a
PS3 with Linux, and said whoever hacked it would get it. The goal was
modifying a file, only writeable as root. "No DoS allowed"
Many news sites quoted that as "you can't use MS-DOS".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/2009 3:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > There has to be a way to stop a script that does
> >
> > while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
> >
> > from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
> >
> And, here I was thinking you were talking about running Firefox under
> MS-DOS. Silly me!
Maybe the subject would have been better written as "Firefox DoS" to be
slightly more unambiguous.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/2009 11:23 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> Maybe the subject would have been better written as "Firefox DoS" to be
> slightly more unambiguous.
>
Indeed.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 11:23 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe the subject would have been better written as "Firefox DoS"
>> to be
>> slightly more unambiguous.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
So I take it I'm not missing something obvious that would allow me to keep
from having to kill my own broken test javascript code? :-) Damn. OK.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> So I take it I'm not missing something obvious that would allow me to
> keep from having to kill my own broken test javascript code? :-) Damn. OK.
Heh, that's nothing. Back when I was failing to learn Perl, my script
locked up, so I'm like "OK, I should go find out what I did wrong".
Closed the browser window and started prodding the source code again.
What I spectacularly failed to realise is that IT'S STILL RUNNING ON THE
SERVER! o_O Closing the browser doesn't stop the server trying to run
the script...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:45:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> There has to be a way to stop a script that does
>
> while (1) {alert("Ha ha!");}
>
> from making you kill your browser from the taskbar, yes?
Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
trusted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
> trusted.
Good idea, except it's my own script. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:34:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
>> trusted.
>
> Good idea, except it's my own script. :-)
Then I'd recommend not shooting yourself in the foot. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Then I'd recommend not shooting yourself in the foot. ;-)
Well, yes, I try not to. It just kind of surprised me that something as
coder-friendly as Firefox couldn't manage to avoid making you shut down all
your tabs just to keep from getting spammed by alerts. Seems odd, is all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
> > trusted.
> Good idea, except it's my own script. :-)
Firefox is open source. Fix it. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:29:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Then I'd recommend not shooting yourself in the foot. ;-)
>
> Well, yes, I try not to. It just kind of surprised me that something as
> coder-friendly as Firefox couldn't manage to avoid making you shut down
> all your tabs just to keep from getting spammed by alerts. Seems odd, is
> all.
I don't disagree, I mostly was just kidding around, I knew you wouldn't
be doing something that crazy intentionally. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
>> > trusted.
>
>> Good idea, except it's my own script. :-)
>
> Firefox is open source. Fix it. ;)
Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Firefox is open source. Fix it. ;)
>
> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
emerge firefox
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>
> emerge firefox
>
The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
quickly:
Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
merge time: 45 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
>
> Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
>
Yes, that's *only* the firefox package. It's also possible that my PC is
faster than yours.
Noted, XMMS takes longer :):
Sun Oct 18 08:55:33 2009 >>> media-sound/xmms-1.2.11
merge time: 51 seconds.
And even OpenOffice.org took under 1 hour:
Thu Oct 15 14:35:38 2009 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.1.1
merge time: 53 minutes and 28 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 01:26, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009>>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>
> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>
>
Well yes, it surely does.
Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>
>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>
>>
>
> Well yes, it surely does.
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
On mine it typically takes an hour.
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>>
>>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well yes, it surely does.
>>
>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>
> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
Maybe he has ccache.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 18:10, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
>> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
>
> Maybe he has ccache.
That would make some sense...except that I've enabled it as well.
Doesn't ccache only have a significant impact if you're recompiling the
same version?
--
When you die, you lose a very important part of your life.
-- Brooke Shields
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> Try installing a newer version?
I will, when it comes as stable on amd64. And yes, this is a new
installation, so it's the first time Xulrunner compiled on this machine.
> Not sure why it's so fast for you -
> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
That's probably it ;). I'm running a new computer with C2Q Q9550
(2,83GHz) and have MAKEOPTS="-j5". These things are ridiculously fast
nowadays.
> On mine it typically takes an hour.
On my home server (Athlon64X2 4450e, 2,3GHz) it seems to have taken 36
minutes and 59 seconds on the first time, which makes sense compared to
C2Q. If youre running multicore, check that you have enabled multiple
threads (the MAKEOPTS option).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Doesn't ccache only have a significant impact if you're recompiling the
> same version?
It has an impact if an *individual file* hasn't been changed.
And changing comments without adding or removing lines counts as "not
changing".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
