+- CentBrowser Forum (https://www.centbrowser.net/en)
+-- Forum: Product Related (https://www.centbrowser.net/en/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Release Channel (https://www.centbrowser.net/en/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 (/showthread.php?tid=3555)
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - rch - 09-05-2020
(09-05-2020, 04:29 PM)AnakhaSilver Wrote: Because other browsers don't CARE. They have bigger teams, but are more committed to other features and just plain don't care about DirectWrite and see no problem with it being removed.
Meanwhile, Cent has a team of LITERALLY THREE PEOPLE. So yeah, methinks all the delays correlate directly to having too few people bearing the load of building and updating a browser.
And you know they don't care how? How do you know they haven't tried to put the Direct Write option in and given up because it's too much work or too difficult. Advanced Chrome couldn't do it which is why they ended up with a workaround of sorts. If there was some widely available code that no-one could be bothered to include, I would agree with you, but it's not like that.
Just throwing more people at a problem doesn't mean it will all get solved. The Cent devs might be of the opinion that you could throw 10 people at the problem and it won't help. Trying to put something previously removed completely back into software as complex as a browser that has major updates every 6 weeks must be no easy task. It's a moving target all the time.
Anyway, they've made it quite clear more than once that they don't want help of that variety. Whether they change their mind in future is anyone's guess but for now, we just need to accept their stance and offer useful feedback in other ways.
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - gtanadam - 09-05-2020
(09-04-2020, 05:33 PM)rch Wrote: How many people are actually using MacType, i would guess it's a tiny amount??
Actually, a lot more than those who need advanced bookmarks.
What's the problem with releasing its patch code then if its not needed? If you don't want it, doesn't automatically mean others don't want it.
(09-04-2020, 05:33 PM)rch Wrote: It's obviously not a simple thing to implement or many browsers would have it. Vivaldi, Opera, Brave and others have huge amounts more resources compared to Cent, and yet not one of them is able to keep Direct Write, even after it being requested multiple times. Ask yourself why.
Also, if no one's doing it, it doesn't mean you/we shouldn't do it.
I have already stated a multiple times that I am down to maintaining it, as well as naming the fork 'Lite' as a matter of fact.
Please stop insisting you have the most ideal opinion.
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - AnakhaSilver - 09-05-2020
(09-05-2020, 08:07 PM)rch Wrote: And you know they don't care how? How do you know they haven't tried to put the Direct Write option in and given up because it's too much work or too difficult. Advanced Chrome couldn't do it which is why they ended up with a workaround of sorts. If there was some widely available code that no-one could be bothered to include, I would agree with you, but it's not like that.Because I've looked into their strances on DirectWrite looking for a browser???
Just throwing more people at a problem doesn't mean it will all get solved. The Cent devs might be of the opinion that you could throw 10 people at the problem and it won't help. Trying to put something previously removed completely back into software as complex as a browser that has major updates every 6 weeks must be no easy task. It's a moving target all the time.
Anyway, they've made it quite clear more than once that they don't want help of that variety. Whether they change their mind in future is anyone's guess but for now, we just need to accept their stance and offer useful feedback in other ways.
Also, it's not about SOLVING A PROBLEM. It's about there being a workload that gets unreasonable for three people. This isn't about JUST DirectWrite why I keep suggesting more volunteers. At this rate, them not accepting help makes me think they have something in their code they want to HIDE despite it clearly being too much for the three of them.
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - rch - 09-06-2020
(09-05-2020, 09:05 PM)gtanadam Wrote: What's the problem with releasing its patch code then if its not needed? If you don't want it, doesn't automatically mean others don't want it.
Also, if no one's doing it, it doesn't mean you/we shouldn't do it.
I have already stated a multiple times that I am down to maintaining it, as well as naming the fork 'Lite' as a matter of fact.
Please stop insisting you have the most ideal opinion.
Interestingly, you somehow know for a fact a lot more people use Direct write over advanced bookmarks (care to share how you know that?) and then you say I'm insisting I have the most ideal opinion.
I'm merely offering an opinion as an end user, just like you, if you don't like it, you can disagree.
You are right, if no-one else is doing it, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But that relies on firstly whether it can be done and it also gives you a clue that others might not be doing it for a valid reason. If they can do it, happy days, but if not, what then?
(09-05-2020, 10:36 PM)AnakhaSilver Wrote: Because I've looked into their strances on DirectWrite looking for a browser???
Also, it's not about SOLVING A PROBLEM. It's about there being a workload that gets unreasonable for three people. This isn't about JUST DirectWrite why I keep suggesting more volunteers. At this rate, them not accepting help makes me think they have something in their code they want to HIDE despite it clearly being too much for the three of them.
From what I understand from the devs replies, it is about solving two distinct issues, if they can be sorted, the rest of the browser is not a problem.
They seem quite set on not accepting outside help so I don't think it'll do much good to keep repeating the point unless they first show a willingness to change that stance, and they haven't so far.
You raise an interesting point about the code, and I've seen people elsewhere throw a few accusations Cent's way. So far, they are unfounded.
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - AnakhaSilver - 09-08-2020
So extensions are definitely beginning to freak out now and barely work
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - rch - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 12:49 AM)AnakhaSilver Wrote: So extensions are definitely beginning to freak out now and barely work
I had some crashes as well, turning off "Use single extension process" stopped the problem for now. If you have the option on it's worth try.
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - AnakhaSilver - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 12:14 PM)rch Wrote: I had some crashes as well, turning off "Use single extension process" stopped the problem for now. If you have the option on it's worth try.It's not crashing. I try to use YouTube Magic Actions. As of a few days ago, in Cent only, this happens sometimes: https://i.imgur.com/aEpv2jK.png
If I turn the extension off, it works just fine (but the dark mode is TOO dark on YT normal and I use this for the volume control and other stuff)
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - rch - 09-08-2020
(09-08-2020, 09:25 PM)AnakhaSilver Wrote: It's not crashing. I try to use YouTube Magic Actions. As of a few days ago, in Cent only, this happens sometimes: https://i.imgur.com/aEpv2jK.png
If I turn the extension off, it works just fine (but the dark mode is TOO dark on YT normal and I use this for the volume control and other stuff)
Sorry, I thought you meant your extensions were crashing.
That extension also complains about an outdated Chrome "Attention! You are using an outdated version of Chrome. This could put your private data at risk! Scan for a new version and Update your Chrome as soon as possible."
If only...
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - papadoc - 09-12-2020
Officially over 6 months between betas...
RE: STABLE version -- 4.2.10.171 - cb-user - 09-13-2020
Questions to the developer.
Why is the information written differently all the time if you execute the command - about:version in the browser?
1. Version - it is written 0, then written for example ca97ba107095b2a88cf04f9135463301e685cbb0-refs/branch-heads/3538@{#1094}
2. OS - it is written simply - Windows, then it is written for example - Windows 7 Service Pack 2 (Build 7601)
3. It is written - Linker: lld-link, then it is written for example - Options: d74ef32b-c7113149, then this position does not exist at all.
Why is it not written the same in different versions? Does each version build differently? Or is it just negligence?