So moot put this link up, it leads to an ascii image of a cat, which is horribly distorted on opera. He should've used <pre> tags, and not <br> after every line.
conclusion: N00B!!!~!!~
>>4
Opera is probably the best browser out there. How many browsers out there can boast Opera's security? Just today, a new exploit was released for IE7, and I'm sure there are some out there that haven't been released for FireFox too.
>>4
I don't want to turn this into some lame /comp/ browser war, but Opera is still doing very well, with 18-20% market share in my mother country (Russia). It's also one of the only browsers to score 100 on the Acid3 test. In addition to that, the damn thing is just so damn fast and responsive; I'm forced to use Firefox at work so I definitely notice a difference.
so damn fast
so are webkit, fx3.1, google chrome... 18-20% market share
why does that matter? mozilla and webkit are writing the standards, opera is a follower now. it's a dead browser.
>>1-2
it looks fine to me in opera (it lines up the same as it does in chrome, safari, and IE). you probably fucked up your settings in opera somehow, or don't have MS PGothic installed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 20:09
>>14
What exactly is a ``dead browser'' first of all? As I said, I don't want to start some lame browser war, so I'll just say this. For me, Opera will always be number one in speed, security, and compliance. I've tried other browsers, including Firefox and Chrome, but they just don't cut it for me.
>>16
Because the browser's a follower up against Mozilla/WebKit it will perpetually be stuck trying to keep compatible with standards and quirks pushed out by the leaders. There's no point in trying to provide Opera compatibility further relegating their role as followers and not leaders. It's a vicious cycle: you have to introduce new (non-standard!) features to spring ahead but you can't do so because no one will support them especially if they cause regressions/conflicts.
Also: op, you are an idiot.
Go back to pr, 4chan is an anime discussion board, if you don't have japanese fonts or your browser doesn't display them correctly, you don't belong here.
>>28
Firefox is in the process of dropping anything of value, and adding worthless trash that nobody will ever use (<video> support... nice try, now how about supporting a codec which is... I don't know... less than twice as worse as what other solutions support TODAY? How much space does that shit take anyway? I'm guessing at least ~100K of binary garbage. It's funny when they remove stuff because it's "bloat that nobody uses". Joke's on you, fucking Mozilla. Keep on being single-threaded and blocking everywhere. It's like I'm using a cooperatively-multitasking OS again.)
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 6:13
>>28
yeah, but lynx probably isn't going to ever drop it, and there's overbite1 for firefox.
1. gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/1/overbite/
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 6:37
Opera sucks sure there's an ebuild for opera but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 6:38
Why is Gopher Still Relevant?
Cameron Kaiser, from the Overbite Project
Most people who "get" Gopher are already using it and instinctively
understand why Gopher is still useful and handy. On the other hand,
people who inhabit the Web generation after Gopher's decline only see
Gopherspace as a prototype Web or a historical curiosity, not a world
in its own right -- and more to the point, being only such a
"prototype," there is the wide belief that Gopher plays no relevant
role in today's Internet and is therefore unnecessary. This has led to
many regrettable consequences, such as the neglect of servers and
clients, or even active removal of support.
However, there is much to be gained from a heterogeneous network
environment where there are multiple methods of information access,
and while the Web will confidently remain the primary means of
Internet information dissemination, there continues to be a role for
Gopher-based resources even in this modern age. Gopher and the Web
can, and should, continue to coexist.
The misconception that the modern renaissance of Gopherspace is simply
a reaction to "Web overload" is unfortunately often repeated and,
while superficially true, demonstrates a distinct lack of insight.
From a purely interface perspective, there is no question that Gopher
could be entirely "subsumed" under the Web (technical differences to
be discussed presently). Very simple HTML menus and careful attention
to hierarchy would yield an experience very much like a Gopher menu,
and some have done exactly that as a deliberate protest against the
sensory overload of modern Web 2.0.
Gopher, however, is more than a confederated affiliation of networks
with goals of minimalism; rather, Gopher is a mind-set on making
structure out of chaos. On the Web, even if such a group of
confederated webmasters existed, it requires their active and willful
participation to maintain such a hierarchical style and the
seamlessness of that joint interface breaks down abruptly as soon as
one leaves for another page. Within Gopherspace, all Gophers work the
same way and all Gophers organize themselves around similar menus and
interface conceits. It is not only easy and fast to create gopher
content in this structured and organized way, it is mandatory by its
nature. Resulting from this mandate is the ability for users to
navigate every Gopher installation in the same way they navigated the
one they came from, and the next one they will go to. Just like it had
been envisioned by its creators, Gopher takes the strict hierarchical
nature of a file tree or FTP and turns it into a friendlier format
that still gives the fast and predictable responses that they would
get by simply browsing their hard drive. As an important consequence,
by divorcing interface from information, Gopher sites stand and shine
on the strength of their content and not the glitz of their bling.
Furthermore, Gopher represents the ability to bring an interconnected
browsing experience to low-computing-power environments. Rather than
the expense of large hosting power and bandwidth, Gopher uses an
inexpensive protocol to serve and a trivial menuing format to parse,
making it cost-effective for both client and server. Gopher sites can
be hosted and downloaded effectively on bandwidth-constrained networks
such as dialup and even low-speed wireless, and clients require little
more than a TCP stack and minimal client software to navigate them. In
an environment where there are cries for "green computing" and "green
data centres," along with large-scale media attention on emerging
technology markets in developing nations and the proliferation of
wireless technology with limited CPU and memory, it is hypocritical to
this author why an established protocol such as Gopher would be
bypassed for continued reliance on inefficient programming paradigms
and expensive protocols. Indeed, this sort of network doublethink has
wrought large, unwieldy solutions such as WAP, a dramatic irony, since
in the case of many low-power devices such as consumer mobile phones,
the menu format used on them is nearly completely analogous to what
Gopher already offered over a decade earlier. More to the point, few
in that market segment support the breadth of WAP, and those that can
simply use a regular Web browser instead.
Finally, if Web and gopher can coexist in the client's purview, they
can also exist in the server's. HTML can be served by both gopher
servers and web servers, or a Gopher menu can be clothed in CSS,
translated to HTML, and given to a web browser (and in its native form
to a Gopher client). This approach yields a natural and highly elegant
consequence: if you don't want to choose strictly one way or the other
to communicate to your users, choose neither and offer them both a
structured low-bandwidth approach or a higher-bandwidth Web view,
built from the same content. The precedent of a single serving
solution offering both to both clients has been in existence since the
early days of the Web with tools such as GN, and today with more
modern implementations such as pygopherd. Gopher menus are so trivial
to parse that they can easily be HTML-ified with simple scripts and
act as the basis for both morphs; what's more, their data-oriented
approach means they require little work to construct and maintain, and
content creation in general becomes simple and quick with the
interface step already taken care of. Plus, many servers easily
generate dynamic gopher menus with built-in executable support,
providing the interactive nature demanded by many modern applications
while still fitting into Gopher's hierarchical format, and virtually
all modern Gopher servers can aggregate links to Web content to forge
bidirectional connections.
Modern Gopherspace represents the next and greatest way for
alternative information access, and the new generation of Gopher
maintainers demonstrate a marked grassroots desire for a purer way to
get to high-quality resources. Not simply nostalgia for the "way it
used to be," modern Gopherspace is a distinctly different population
than in the mid 1990s when it flourished, yet one on which modern
services can still be found, from news and weather to search engines,
personal pages, "phlogs" and file archives. It would be remiss to
dismissively say Gopher was killed by the Web, when in fact the Web
and Gopher can live in their distinct spheres and each contribute to
the other. With the modern computing emphasis on interoperability,
heterogeneity and economy, Gopher continues to offer much to the
modern user, as well as in terms of content, accessibility and
inexpensiveness. Even now clearly as second fiddle to the World Wide
Web, Gopher still remains relevant. -- Cameron Kaiser
I fucking hate The Scene. They're a bunch of elitist retards who keep on using idiotic methods of distribution just because they're the "Unwritten Informal Rules of God." Stop splitting things in tiny rars and then put them in zips inside of rars inside of tar.gzs inside of rars. Stop wasting time on making ASCII art in fonts no one has anymore. Stop using your FTPs with rules from 15 years ago. You don't need "couriers," "pre-channels" or "topsites", just fucking torrent it. What the fuck is your problem? There are plenty of ultra-cool supah sekrit private trackers you can use to make your releases if you feel public ones are not "underground" enough for you.
You're not doing it for "quality." Your average "non-scene" Blackcats game or your average "non-scene" what.cd FLAC torrent are of equal or better quality than "scene" releases. I remember that recently, a DS game (was it Final Fantasy IV? I can't remember) was released first by someone "who didn't belong to the scene." The "scene" release showed up several hours later and it ended up being a bad dump. What happened, did you accidentally jizzed all over your DS while you were dumping the cart just thinking about all the eProps your buddies were going to give you for dumping a high profile game for their glory? And why did you feel the need to make a dupe of something someone else had already dumped? Just because it's missing a cool "-L33TKiDZ" tag on the filename, that doesn't mean you need to dupe it, asshole.
Stop clinging to obsolete formats that no one else uses. Really, who the hell wants to download 1G of Xvid? If I'm downloading a goddamned HD show, maybe I have what it takes to play h.264?
They should learn a couple of things from the anime fansubbing scene. Anyone can start a group. If a group sucks, natural selection will take care of them, because the channels of communication that allow people to judge and rate them are there. All groups are given equal chances. They have simple methods of distribution (XDCC + torrent), always jump on new, more efficient technologies and generally don't have dumb hierarchies.
In the meanwhile, "The Scene" is stuck in the 80s with their obsolete technology and "Secret Handshake Club No Girls Allowed" Elementary School bullshit.
op here. i tried uninstalling opera and then installing again, but it didn't solve anything. what shall i do??
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 15:50
Actually OP has a point.
The first attempt was just a text file which relied on font auto-substitution that on most Windows machines ended up selecting a font that had similar metrics to MS PGothic, giving reasonable results. The text file was in UTF-8, I don't know whether it relied on fragile charset auto-detection or not.
The EXPERT ENTERPRISE version we can enjoy now has significantly changed since then. It has turned into a HTML document, albeit with no boilerplate at all. It explicitly specifies MS PGothic as the font to use, but it displays the graphic as if it was HTML, as the OP points out, with <br> after every line instead of using a <pre> block.
Moreover, the charset, which is now a rather stange choice (at UTF-16 little endian) is not specified anywhere but by the BOM (byte order mark) at the beginning of the file, somewhat relying in the user agent's auto-detection mechanisms.
So, yes, it's safe to conclude that more finesse could have been applied to the job.
>>1
Protip: That's not ascii. It might be text, but it is not ascii.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 18:43
>>38
op here. i am running ubuntu and it still doesn't wrok. what do i do??
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 22:31
>>1
How do you know that moot was the one to actually put that up?
There's the other guys like MrVacBob, coda, shut and whoever the
hell else manages 4chan along side moot.
Envisioned by its creators Gopher takes the SAME AMOUNT OF the original code AND the resulting binary is considered an unnatural phenomenon by a vast region and was confident about my OTHER CAR I GUESS ITS A CDR AND IS maintainable and scalable applications interfaces to the real core OSAScript It is.