Websites requiring recent browser versions indirectly puts control into the hands of browser vendors.

If users are forced to update, they are at the mercy of browser makers Google and Mozilla. Google and Mozilla can deliver whichever malicious feature they feel like, like mandatory add-on signing with updates.

Add-on signing is the thing that caused all extensions to be remotely disabled on May 3, 2019.

Also, Microsoft can disable your computer through an update if they wanted to.

Jody Bruchon video: https://youtube.com/watch/...

How is a "web app" any better than a "web site"?

All a "web app" does is adding a JavaScript program as a middle-man between the browser and the server.

Where as "web sites" instantly deliver content, "web apps" deliver JavaScript code that then loads the content and puts it on the page.

A "web site" serves the browser useful content on a silver plate (metaphorically speaking), where as "web apps" serve some JavaScript code and the browser has to do the heavy lifting.

It appears that the only benefit of "web apps" is the fancier name. "App" sounds fancy while "site" sounds mundane. But technically, a "web app" is worse than a "web site". It's both slower and vulnerable to scripting errors.

Why would anyone in their right mind choose to create a web "app" over a web "site" to load text and a bunch of pictures?

I get it, some things such as posting comments without reloading the page and loading new search results when scrolling down are not possible without JavaScript, but why use JavaScript for everything, even where it wouldn't be necessary?

JavaScript should never be required to show a bunch of boxes containing pictures and some text. JavaScript is intended to enhance web sites, not to load entire websites.

As web developer Jake Archibald said, "[100% of] your users are non-JS while they're downloading your JS" ( https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/... ).

See also: I miss the good times when the web was lightweight. ( https://devrant.com/rants/9987051/... )

"App" is not an excuse: https://jakearchibald.com/2013/...

I am sad Archive.org switched to being a web app. But I applaud them for resisting that trend longer than most other large sites.

Add-on signing is censorship in disguise.

Imagine Google could remotely delete YouTube videos you downloaded, to "keep you safe" from the "bad content". Well, Google and Mozilla can remotely disable extensions you installed using their pre-installed trojan horse called "add-on signing".

Always remember, whenever a corporation cites "for your protection", consider it synonymous with "so we can control you more".

Graphic designer vs. programmer.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch/...

If Sony owned Android OS, would they have added severe restrictions and anti-features like Google did too?

I wonder how old the oldest file in any RAM drive is.

By that, I mean what the longest time a file resided in a RAM drive is.

Say after me:
/usr means USER!!!
$PWD means PASSWORD!!!
/dev means DEVELOPMENT!!!!

Don't you dare question this!!1!

2012 laptop:
- 4 USB ports or more.
- Full-sized SD card slot with write-protection ability.
- User-replaceable battery.
- Modular upgradeable memory.
- Modular upgradeable data storage.
- eSATA port.
- LAN port.
- Keyboard with NUM pad.
- Full-sized SD card slot.
- Full-sized HDMI port.
- Power, I/O, charging, network indicator lamps.
- Modular bay (for example Lenovo UltraBay)
- 1080p webcam (Samsung 700G7A)
- No TPM trojan horse.

2024 laptop:
- 1 or 2 USB ports.
- Only MicroSD card slot. Requires fumbling around and has no write-protection switch.
- Non-replaceable battery.
- Soldered memory.
- Soldered data storage.
- No eSATA port.
- No LAN port.
- No NUM pad.
- Micro-HDMI port or uses USB-C port as HDMI.
- Only power lamp. No I/O lamp so user doesn't know if a frozen computer is crashed or working.
- No modular bay
- 720p webcam
- TPM trojan horse (Jody Bruchon video: https://youtube.com/watch/... )
- "Premium design" (who the hell cares?!)

Will devRant exist in the year 2100?

If I could create laws, I would pass a "software usability act" which would eliminate many annoyances we face daily.

For example, the law would mandate range selection in file managers, mandate time-stamped file names in camera and voice recording apps, and require that browsers open a new tab next to the currently open tab instead of at the end, and all user interfaces must have a dark mode to reduce eye strain, and all operating systems must have a blue light filter, text editors must create a temporary copy when saving to avoid corrupting the existing file, camera applications should not corrupt the entire video file when ending unexpectedly (crashing), cancelling file operations must not cause data loss ( https://support.google.com/photos/... ), no mandatory pull-to-refresh ( https://chromestory.com/2019/07/... ), to mention a few examples.

Mobile file managers commonly lack a range selection feature (also known as shift selection or A-to-B selection), where all items between two selected items of a list can be selected immediately. ES File Explorer had this in 2012, yet many fancy new file managers still don't have this. To select many items, each item needs to be tapped individually. This is an unacceptable annoyance.

This is not to be confused with the inferior drag-to-select which requires holding the finger on the screen until all desired items are selected. Drag-to-select is not range selection, only its ugly stepsister.

Ah yes, under the imaginary software usability act, Mozilla would have to say good-bye to its evil add-on signing. "For our protection" my arse.

I never understood the purpose of posthumous copyright terms.

Dead people don't benefit from copyright, making it pointless for them.

Competition is necessary for a healthy marketplace.

Whenever there is a monopoly or a near-monopoly, its owners can treat their users poorly through restrictions (Android OS becoming like iOS), planned obsolescence, unfounded content takedowns (YouTube), account lock-outs until the user provides more personal data (Google demanding phone numbers), subscription services instead of ownership (Adobe, BMW heated seats), and users would have nowhere else to go.

Us users would never accept data lock-in for photos and videos from the camera app on smartphones.

Yet, for some reason, we accepted data lock-in for saved pages on mobile web browsers.

I believe that without competition, YouTube would likely ban re-uploads entirely.
YouTube thankfully tolerates re-uploads of deleted videos because it knows that the minute they prohibit re-uploads, competitors like Dailymotion and BitchUte would get immediate massive growth.

There are entire channels dedicated to re-uploading deleted videos of specific channels! (for example: https://youtube.com/channel/... )

In 2017, YouTube alternatives were rather immature, but they have developed: https://youtube.com/watch/...

Google's "alliance for open media" which created nice video codecs appears to be far more "open" than the "open handset alliance" that has locked down Android OS file management and task management severely.

1080p is the new 720p. 720p is the new 480p.

Don't attack flies using tanks.

In 2020, a bug was found in gnome-terminal where selecting many megabytes of text inside the terminal would cause the terminal emulator to crash.

As a remedy, the brain of gnome-terminal developer Christian Persch spawned a "brilliant idea": Limiting the "Select all" feature to selecting only the portion of text that is visible on screen.

In other words, Persch made the "Select all" option useless. After pressing "Select all", it appeared as if everything was selected, but once you scrolled up, nothing beyond what was visible was selected.

By solving a minor problem that rarely ever occurs, Christian Persch created a major problem that often occurs.

Source for screenshot: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/...

What I like about devRant is the lack of usernames in the feed so people vote without judgement to the author. What was written matters more than who wrote it.

Obviously, I appreciate that it uses lightweight JavaScript. No JS bombs like mainstream social media. ( https://devrant.com/rants/9987051/... )

Also, posts have no titles and no formatting, just raw content. No clickbaiting and no bold italic screaming are possible. Posts have to get just straight to the point.

I download YouTube videos just to watch them on a clean user interface without distracting advertisements and suggested videos.

As a lawmaker, I would grant the right to root.

Smartphone and computer manufacturers must not take measures to block users from rooting their devices.

Like pull-to-refresh, auto-selecting the file name in "save as" dialogues is a design trend we are perpetuating without questioning its usefulness.

The "rename" feature of file managers and the file name fields in "Save as" dialogues and screenshot tools automatically select file names without the ending, expecting the user to want to replace it.

It would more sense to place the cursor between the file name and the ending ".png".

I can't remember the last time I replaced a file name. I almost always rename files to add a comment or time stamp at the end.

Adding a comment after the time stamp, for example, "Screenshot at 2024-02-04 12-04-37 progress bar.png", makes more sense than replacing the file name. A file name with a time stamp is more easily searched.

Samsung introduced a useful feature to their smartphones just to cripple it one year later.

In 2015, Samsung introduced camera quick launch to their Galaxy S6, where the camera could be accessed by double-pressing the home button. Before that, the double press accessed the far less useful S Voice.

A year later, with their Android 6.0 update and the phones that had Android 6.0 pre-installed (starting with the Galaxy S7), they ruined it with a useless "Camera has been opened via quick launch" pop-up that would appear if the camera app detects that the phone is in the pocket. This was detected using the front and rear proximity sensors.

If this useless pop-up was closed with the "back" key or by tapping the background behind the pop-up or by doing nothing for five seconds, the camera application would close itself. It would only stay open if the user tapped the tiny little "OK" button that could easily be missed in a crucial moment.

This made it impossible to blindly launch the camera while the phone is still inside the pocket, defeating one of the greatest benefits of the feature. And closing that pop-up takes time that could lead to a moment being missed by the camera.

Additionally, Samsung introduced a bug in Android 6.0 where launching the camera within seconds of going into stand-by mode would cause it to exit automatically after a few seconds.

Screenshot credits: https://forums.androidcentral.com/t...

Your three-second password retry delay is far more likely to annoy users than preventing a brute-force attack.

If you insist on a retry delay, let the user enter a password five times without any delay. This would make no difference in the grand scheme, the trillions of retries needed for a brute-force attack, and guessing a password takes longer than three seconds of thinking anyway.

Another alternative is a tenth of the password retry delay but one added character. One added character slows down a brute-force attack by at least sixty-two (62) times, so one more character but a tenth of the password retry delay would still mean more than six (6) times the protection against brute-forcing.

On Linux, the password retry delay can thankfully be reduced by changing a value inside /etc/pam.d/common-auth or /etc/pam.d/login (out of scope for this post, you can search online for more details).

“ Your smartphone doesn't need a large battery! Just use your power bank! ”

Oh really? Then your smartphone doesn't need a good camera. Just use your DSLM camera!

Totally the best possible excuse for fewer USB ports on a laptop: "It's more streamlined!"

Yeah, when I am on the go and need that one additional port, my first thought will be "well, thankfully it at least is streamlined! That's helpful!"

Mozilla and Wikimedia thankfully encourage Internet users into choosing the open and patentless VP9 format by denying H.265 support until H.265 is patent-free.

Well-done, Mozilla and WMF! I don't think H.265 is a bad format, but so long it is encumbered by patents, it is in the public interest that it does not become the dominant format.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US...

> "Mozilla will not support HEVC while it is encumbered by patents."

Not only does every app need to have an export option, but new exports must create new, time-stamped files rather than overwriting an existing export!

A counter-example is "Battery Monitor Widget" by CCC71 or 3C71. That app creates a file in the main user directory, named "bmw_history.txt" (no relation to the car manufacturer).

When a new export is created, the existing bmw_history.txt is overwritten. This could lead to data loss if the user is unaware of this behaviour.

The developer thought of creating an export ability, but messed up at the file naming process.

Mandatory time-stamped user data exports for every app would not be so bad. This makes sure no developer would forget about it. GDPR gave us data portability for social media platforms. Let's do it for apps too. (Sorry, Samsung Internet, you can no longer lock in saved pages. Your users are sick of it.)

> Sorry, you have not updated your browser this week. Please update your browser to use our site.

*user tries to update browser*

> Sorry, your operating system is no longer supported. Please upgrade your operating system to install this update.

*user tries to update operating system*

> Sorry, your device is no longer supported. Please buy a new phone to use this operating system.

*buys new phone*

> Pay! Pay! Pay! Consoooom!

————

See where this is going? It is thinly-veiled planned obsolescence.

Google simply can't knock off harrassing their users with security theatre.

A friend of mine has a small personal YouTube channel. He has recently been bombarded with several phone verification requests a week: "Verify it's you. To continue your session, complete a brief verification. This extra step helps us keep your account safe by making sure it’s really you. "

While frequent verifications may be understandable on YouTube channels with millions of subscribers, channels with only a few dozen subscribers are not attractive hacking targets. A verification would be justified before a potentially harmful action such as deleting videos or deleting a channel. But not for normal everyday use.

What's next? Will they ask users to "verify it's them" every ten minutes, "just for extra security"? Just to verify that it is "really, really, really, really, really" them?

It's not security. It's security theatre.

Sorry, Google, but users are not in the mood of doing a phone verification every other day.

Has this been Google's perverted wet dream all along?

As a lawmaker, I would ban smartphones thinner than ten millimetres (10 mm) so manufacturers are forced into building physically stronger smartphones with bigger and faster-charging batteries without having a competitive disadvantage.

Video: Your Smartphone is too thin. Here's why. https://youtube.com/watch/...

Poll (screenshot source): https://androidauthority.com/phone-...