Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg

> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view 
> source" either...)

  In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.

  And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
> 
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)

Loaded just fine here in Chrome.  Nice pic. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:

>    In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.

Yes. But the question is: would you want to?

This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be 
represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap 
than by a vector tracing of it.

There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win. 
Photographs is definitely not one of them.

>    And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.

Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly 
to use though.

(E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to 
certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert 
uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times 
previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that 
several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting 
the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much 
*effort*.)

Still, probably easier than writing SVG by hand...

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>> source" either...)
>
> Loaded just fine here in Chrome.  Nice pic. :-)

Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it 
eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to 
repaint was even slower.

I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that 
means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex 
background.

I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But 
unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you 
could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of 
PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the 
XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so 
forth) or it doesn't work.

I'm *so* not bothering...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> 
>>    In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
> 
> Yes. But the question is: would you want to?
> 
> This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be 
> represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap 
> than by a vector tracing of it.
> 
> There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win. 
> Photographs is definitely not one of them.

how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization 
without image degration?

not the case here, though...

>>    And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
> 
> Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly 
> to use though.
> 
> (E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to 
> certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert 
> uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times 
> previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that 
> several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting 
> the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much 
> *effort*.)

sometimes fiddling with the User Preferences dialog may save lots of effort.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization 
> without image degration?

  Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:46:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>>> source" either...)
>>
>> Loaded just fine here in Chrome.  Nice pic. :-)
> 
> Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
> eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
> repaint was even slower.

True. :-)  "Loaded" to me, though, implies "didn't melt the browser".  :-)

> I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that
> means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex
> background.
> 
> I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
> unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you
> could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of
> PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the
> XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so
> forth) or it doesn't work.
> 
> I'm *so* not bothering...

I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?

IE doesn't as always.  They are far less interested in a uniform 
cross-platform web and much more interested in things like allowing web 
pages with multimedia content being controlled directly by desktop 
controls in IE9 -- as long as your page is IE9-only, of course... how 
cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the 
video window in the page? :p

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

>> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
>> without image degration?
>
>    Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?

I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's 
not useful *for photographs*.

Now, if you were trying to present a Dilbert strip, a vector tracing of 
it would probably 1) take up a fraction of the bandwidth, and 2) look 
great at any possible resolution (if it's been traced well). Vector 
graphics is fantastic for stuff like that.

But for a photograph... well, see for yourself. The image quality is 
nowhere near what the original photograph was, and that's *before* you 
try to change size...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
>> Photographs is definitely not one of them.
>
> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
> without image degration?
>
> not the case here, though...

Not the case ever, for photographs.

Now, if you wanted to represent the company logo, or some line art, or 
some kind of chart, or any one of a bazillion other things, vector 
graphics would be a big, big win.

>>> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
>>
>> Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly
>> fiddly to use though.
>
> sometimes fiddling with the User Preferences dialog may save lots of
> effort.

Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly 
crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>>>> source" either...)
>>>
>>> Loaded just fine here in Chrome.  Nice pic. :-)
>>
>> Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
>> eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
>> repaint was even slower.
>
> True. :-)  "Loaded" to me, though, implies "didn't melt the browser".  :-)

I see. So "it took forever and the whole program became somewhat 
unstable" isn't the same as "melted"? ;-)

>> I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
>> unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported.
>
> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?

Apparently everything except IE supports SVG now, and IE supports it if 
you install the right plugin. It's just that you have to jump through 
hoops if you want to *embed* SVG inside something else (like, say... a 
web page?)

Similar story for MathML, actually. Except with fewer hoops to jump 
through... (I mean, other than "writing the ****ing MathML in the first 
place".)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's 
> not useful *for photographs*.

  Who ever suggested it to be used for photographs?

> But for a photograph... well, see for yourself. The image quality is 
> nowhere near what the original photograph was, and that's *before* you 
> try to change size...

  I got the impression that the purpose of the SVG was to show an artistic
impression of the image (like if it was painted).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2010 08:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
>> not useful *for photographs*.
>
>    Who ever suggested it to be used for photographs?

The page that linked to this image. They made it sound like "and even 
better, there's plenty of programs to convert all your JPEG and PNG 
images to SVG", like it's just another image format.

>    I got the impression that the purpose of the SVG was to show an artistic
> impression of the image (like if it was painted).

If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires 
more effort than just an automatic trace program though.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires 
> more effort than just an automatic trace program though.

  There are Photoshop (and Gimp) filters that can do that to a photo.
Trivial to convert to SVG afterwards.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...

I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:17:13 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
> 
> IE doesn't as always.  They are far less interested in a uniform
> cross-platform web and much more interested in things like allowing web
> pages with multimedia content being controlled directly by desktop
> controls in IE9 -- as long as your page is IE9-only, of course... how
> cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
> video window in the page? :p

That's what I seemed to recall.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:23:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
> not useful *for photographs*.

Along the same lines, the palm of your hand does not make a good hammer, 
either.

(I don't think anyone with half a brain ever argued that SVG was good for 
photos)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
> 
> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....

I heard open-source software works best with other open-source software, 
mod-style... ;)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
>>
>> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
> 
> I heard open-source software works best with other open-source software, 
> mod-style... ;)

mob-style... :p

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:45:52 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> nemesis escreveu:
>> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>>>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
>>>
>>> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
>> 
>> I heard open-source software works best with other open-source
>> software, mod-style... ;)
> 
> mob-style... :p

Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source 
software.  Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to 
the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires
>> more effort than just an automatic trace program though.
>
>    There are Photoshop (and Gimp) filters that can do that to a photo.
> Trivial to convert to SVG afterwards.

Yeah, that's more the kind of thing I'm thinking...

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2010 01:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source
> software.  Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to
> the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)

I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash 
most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view  
> source" either...)

Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as  
Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.

Then take a look at the code source at  
http://cdn.thewildernessdowntown.com/js/main-compressed.js :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:42:07 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>>
>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>> source" either...)
>
> Loaded just fine here in Chrome.  Nice pic. :-)

Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load  
in Opera, about 15 in Firefox and about 10 in Chrome, but it seemed to not  
want to display properly in the latter until it had finished downloading.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser.
>
> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.

I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of 
it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a street 
and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time bringing the 
entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:30:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser.
>>
>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>
> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of  
> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a street  
> and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time bringing the  
> entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?

I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>>
>> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
>> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a
>> street and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time
>> bringing the entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?
>
> I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.

Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM I 
was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that Flash 
was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss is about.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:01:30 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>>>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>>>
>>> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
>>> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a
>>> street and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time
>>> bringing the entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I  
>>> missing?
>>
>> I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.
>
> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM I  
> was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that Flash  
> was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss is  
> about.

Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for Flash;  
bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version of Flash"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM
>> I was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that
>> Flash was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss
>> is about.
>
> Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for
> Flash; bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version
> of Flash"

Right, but... why does it run at a crawl and utterly cripple the 
browser? (In the end, I couldn't actually terminate Chrome; I just 
terminated the entire VM - the equivalent of a hard shutdown.)

I'm all for new technology, but this one doesn't seem to enable you to 
do anything interesting, and requires absurd amounts of computer power 
to do what little it does.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 22/09/2010 01:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source
>> software.  Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to
>> the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)
> 
> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash 
> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!

strangely enough, never experienced a MSOff crash, let alone while 
saving.  OTOH, I obviously don't use it at home and use it only very 
rarely at work, mostly to read other people's works.

Best use I've done so far for an office suite is my personal accounting 
spreadsheet in OpenOffice.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 escreveu:
> And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:01:30 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake thusly:
>> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM 
>> I was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that 
>> Flash was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss 
>> is about.
> 
> Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for 
> Flash; bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version 
> of Flash"

I'm much more excited about getting rid of small plugin windows getting 
keyboard and mouse focus and getting embedding of other web techs like 
SVG, xforms directly into the page markup.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!

Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while 
saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it 
hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then 
all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a 
document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help 
files sucked. ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
> 
> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while 
> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it 
> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then 
> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a 
> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help 
> files sucked. ;)

I can see know why's it's so widespread and popular:  it can reproduce 
its own bugs in a way that it's impossible for OpenOffice opening their 
documents...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Mike Raiford escreveu:
>> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>>
>> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while 
>> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it 
>> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) 
>> Then all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work 
>> on a document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create 
>> help files sucked. ;)
> 
> I can see know why's it's so widespread and popular:  it can reproduce 
> its own bugs in a way that it's impossible for OpenOffice opening their 
> documents...

now!  what's happening to my english skills??! o_O

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2010 07:57 PM, nemesis wrote:

> now! what's happening to my english skills??! o_O

Skills?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2010 07:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>
> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
> files sucked. ;)

Interestingly, I've seen a Word document which crashes Word every time 
you touch it, yet it opens just fine in OpenOffice. Resave it and it 
works perfectly in Word again.

Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the 
spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh? :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 22-9-2010 22:17, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 22/09/2010 07:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>>
>> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
>> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
>> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
>> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
>> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
>> files sucked. ;)
>
> Interestingly, I've seen a Word document which crashes Word every time
> you touch it, yet it opens just fine in OpenOffice. Resave it and it
> works perfectly in Word again.
>
> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
> :-P
>
You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while 
opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist 
I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have 
a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.

Post a reply to this message

>> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
>> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
>> :-P
>>
> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.

Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language 
which facilitates operational proofs...

Post a reply to this message

> Right, but... why does it run at a crawl and utterly cripple the
> browser? (In the end, I couldn't actually terminate Chrome; I just
> terminated the entire VM - the equivalent of a hard shutdown.)
>
> I'm all for new technology, but this one doesn't seem to enable you to
> do anything interesting, and requires absurd amounts of computer power
> to do what little it does.

I just saw an advert:

"Make the Internet fast. Download Google Chrome, the fast web browser."

Not on the strength of this thing. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 9/22/2010 3:39 PM, andrel wrote:

> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.

I've had a .docx file that crashed OO before.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 9/22/2010 4:26 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
> in Opera, about 15 in Firefox and about 10 in Chrome, but it seemed to
> not want to display properly in the latter until it had finished
> downloading.
>

It's definitely proof of something. When a puppy leaves a mess like that 
on the floor ....

Seriously... SVG was never meant to render photos as vector art..

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
>>> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
>>> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
>>> :-P
>>>
>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
> 
> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language 
> which facilitates operational proofs...

nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and 
work on from there... :p

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
>> 
>> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
>> which facilitates operational proofs...
> 
> nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> work on from there... :p

Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and 
continue spreading the myth?

It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many 
abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Invisible escreveu:
> >> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> >> which facilitates operational proofs...
> >
> > nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> > work on from there... :p
>
> Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
> continue spreading the myth?
>
> It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
> abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.

I know that, but the myth is so widespread that for some subconscious reason I
automatically wrote java...

in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
challenge... :p

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> strangely enough, never experienced a MSOff crash, let alone while 
> saving.  

It used to be much, much more common before 2000 or so. They apparently 
decided to actually spend the effort it took to fix it, and now I often go 
several hours without remembering to save stuff.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
> challenge... :p

First, you'd have to define the semantics of C++ well enough to write a 
formalism for it. And then that would fail to apply to any other C++ compiler.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the 
> video window in the page? :p

MS was always more interested in cool IPC stuff than UNIX-based systems, 
yes. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load 

On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need more 
memory or something.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:01:35 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
>
> On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need  
> more memory or something.

What 3Gb is not enough :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need
>> more memory or something.
>
> What 3Gb is not enough :-)

The World Is Not Enough.

Post a reply to this message