r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[DevCon2008 (post-chatter)] DevCon2008

Geomol
17-Dec-2008
[376]
Graham, what happens if you in Windows start a cmd and type:
start http://www.rebol.com

(I can't remember, where the problem is, so I'm just giving ideas.)
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[377x2]
filetypes are okay.
start rebol.com invokes chrome.
Geomol
17-Dec-2008
[379x2]
In REBOL console, what does this show?
system/options/browser-type
Did you reboot your computer since you changed default browser?
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[381x3]
about 100 times
>> probe system/options/browser-type
0
== 0
ie. nothing
Reichart
17-Dec-2008
[384]
Graham, if this does not clear up, then send this to Feedback please.
Geomol
17-Dec-2008
[385x3]
Graham, there's some info here about default browser in the registry:

http://newoldthing.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/how-does-your-browsers-know-that-its-not-the-default-browser/


It's not only the file-type, it seems, but also per protocol. Try 
check for example HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/HTTP/shell/open/command and such.
Note to self: when designing an OS, don't create a registry!!!
Graham, I hope, you know to be careful, if you're gonna change in 
the registry! All on your own risk!
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[388]
hmm. it's pointing to FF
Geomol
17-Dec-2008
[389]
There you go! :) :/
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[390x2]
wow ..
= not world of warcraft
Geomol
17-Dec-2008
[392x2]
wow what?
hehe
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[394]
Chrome works here - AltMe points to it. You need to set Chrome as 
the default in the Chrome options, not just the start menu.
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[395x3]
joke... the comp.ps usergroup is full of wow spam
is set in Chrome options
now where is the chrome binary :( ?
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[398]
%userprofile%\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[399]
who would use Chrome anyway? Useless attempt for the browser :-)
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[400x2]
I would, because the memory and screen usage are a better fit for 
the netbook I do most of my stuff from nowadays :)
Same with the CPU usage, except for Flash.
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[402]
so you support another try for the vendor lock-in, hype, and all 
of that? :-)
Sunanda
17-Dec-2008
[403]
Paul: <I just realized this group i s web-public and that means the 
links are now public.  Did we want that to happen?>

Nick has also posted the links and default userid/passwords on the 
ML, so yes, those details are public.

Still, worth bearing in mind this is all [web-public], so stay on 
topic :-)
http://www.rebol.org/ml-display-thread.r?m=rmlCDZC
Reichart
17-Dec-2008
[404]
I'm a fan of Chrome, but it is too buggy for me still.  If FF speeds 
up JavaScript, I'll stick with it.  However, we are thinking of releasing 
a custom version of Chrome for Qtask.
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[405x2]
C:\Users\Graham\appdata\local\google\chrome\application\chrome.exe
 "%1"

what should it be??
is this close enuf?
Reichart
17-Dec-2008
[407x2]
(I was aware this was public, but hte Qtask link that is public is 
public, and the other link requires a password).
Nick, you might want to change the password for your site though.
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[409]
That looks right for Vista, Graham.
Graham
17-Dec-2008
[410x2]
or art there someother command line params?
time to reboot to see if it works
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[412]
haha, now you make me laugh, Reichart. So in order to get web crap 
really work for you, one has to release its own browser? Come on 
:-)
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[413]
Reichart, I would be happy if the regular Qtask worked better with 
Chrome - it's the only site I frequent that needs another browser.
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[414]
btw - FF should get new JS engine - SpiderMonkey or something like 
that, for 3.1, which is coming in few months ....
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[415]
And then I still wouldn't be able to use it on this computer - too 
much RAM and screen space.
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[416]
too much RAM? For FF 3.x?
Reichart
17-Dec-2008
[417x2]
Pekr, I think you jumped to a conclusion.  It is not that one needs 
to release their own browser, but rather that you can do some fun 
skinning, and also offline more, which all browsers don't support 
yet.
more = mode.
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[419]
Yes. Chrome uses much less RAM than FF 3.x or IE.
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[420]
BrianH - what is your netbook? I tested EeePC 901 with 1GB RAM - 
was enough :-)
Reichart
17-Dec-2008
[421x2]
For example, you can program Chrome to hold the contents of HTTPS 
between sessions, which FF does not do.

Sure, you can change settings, but giving people a single "thing" 
that does it correctly works for me.
Pekr, your anti-web stance is...uh...a little out dated.  no?
BrianH
17-Dec-2008
[423]
I have the same netbook, but I have more other stuff running on it 
so I have to count my MBs.
Pekr
17-Dec-2008
[424x2]
Offline  mode - interesting. I studied it a bit, because we needed 
off-line client for CRM, but along with data. We found some FF framework, 
but it is not W3C standard (yet).
Reichart - of course - I will be last turning off the lights from 
REBOL. Every support for web crap is good for your business, but 
is killing REBOL day by day.