If you too are sick of pull-to-refresh in Google Chrome, please consider signing this petition:

https://change.org/p/...

While I doubt it will get Google to change their minds, it is worth a shot.

FAQ:

Why not just use Firefox?
Because it can't save pages as HTML or MHTML file. Don't even get me started with SinglePage; it is bogus garbage.

Why not just use Kiwi/Brave/etc. ?
Because Google made it mandatory in its codebase, Brave and Kiwi browser and all those other chromium-based third-parties have it mandatory too. This needs to change.

It took Samsung over a decade to implement something as simple as staying in the current directory instead of going to the initial directory after tapping the "copy" or "move" button in their smartphone file manager.

How long will it take them to implement a simple option to always launch on the rear camera regardless of which camera was last used? Two decades?

It should not even take one day.

Streamlined means bastardized.

Drag-to-select in Samsung's "My Files" app is a disaster.

If you don't move your finger and stop dragging towards the top or bottom, it goes into "drag-and-drop" after one second. When you release your finger, it unselects everything, so you have to start over.

This is why every mobile file manager needs range selection. This means tapping two files, tapping a button, and everything inbetween is immediately selected.

This is similar to shift+click selection on desktop. We take this for granted since it has been a standard feature for three decades. But mobile apps still can't do this simple thing as of 2024.

"Drag-to-select" is better than individual selection, but comes nowhere close to real range selection. "Drag to select" is at best an ugly twin of full desktop-like range selection, but file manager developers can still get away with giving it the label of "mass selection".

ES File Explorer had this since at least 2012, yet billion-dollar Samsung and Google fail to implement this in their file managers.

(Yet another rant on TAR commands.)
Whose idea was it to make TAR file listing "tar -t" and not "tar -l"?

How does it make sense? It goes against intuition.

It would have been more logical to make "-t" tarfile instead of "-f", and to make "-l" list.

Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1168/

Thanks to Google for at least keeping the local performance analysis tool in the Chrome developer tools.

Firefox Profiler is a joke.

Anti-features need to be fought with fire (metaphorically speaking).

This means they must be eliminated, not just made optional.

Why? Because an optional anti-feature is just one step away from a mandatory anti-feature.

For example, "secure" booting: https://youtu.be/vvaWrmS3Vg4?t=750 (Jody Bruchon)

Another example are disguised remote kill switches, such as add-on signing ( https://digdeeper.club/articles/... ). It started as optional and people were able to opt out, and everyone accepted it because no one expected what would come next.
All that was left was removing the ability to opt out, and then Mozilla has control over which extensions users are allowed to use.

For years, this feature sat dormant and users did not know of its existence. But in early May 2019, the metaphorical thread snapped and an expired certificate remotely disabled all extensions, wasting millions of man-hours of productivity.

From the digdeeper.club article:

"The funny thing is, the whole point of the extension prison was allegedly to increase security - and yet today, all security addons got disabled because of it! Shows how freedom always has to trump over security or it ends up in a disaster like this."

Evil needs to be nipped in the bud before it can flourish.

The "JavaScript-based web app" starter pack.
Build web sites, not web "apps".
JavaScript is an enhancement, not a replacement for HTML.

This is why my trust in updates is low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Updates aren't always good. Sometimes, they might introduce problems and anti-features.

(Also, didn't whoever introduced this backdoor on a wildly popular component of Linux expect to be caught?!)

Google is known for frequently removing features from its products and services. So much that they have been given the nickname "Gookill".

If only they removed the one feature that deserves to be removed.

Pull-to-refresh.

To be honest, Windows Vista looks undeniably beautiful, no matter how unpopular it might was.

The user interface looked amazing. It looks decent even by today's standards. Windows XP looks more like a toy with its over-saturated colours, but Windows Vista appears elegant.

The stock wallpaper of Vista, "Aurora", is among the most beautiful out-of-the-box wallpapers I have seen.

Remember, Windows 7, arguably the most popular version of Windows, is a rebranding for a slightly altered Windows Vista Service Pack 2. Microsoft realized the reputation of the "Vista" trademark was ruined beyond repair, so they had to rebrand.

Image source: https://reddit.com/r/WindowsVista/... ( https://i.redd.it/dr4vqiqqi0q81.png ).

Also see: "Was Windows Vista THAT bad?" - Linus Tech Tips ( https://youtube.com/watch/... )

Both the FAT32 and ISO9660 file systems have a 4 GB file size limitation due to storing file sizes as a 32-bit integer. However, the developers of ISO9660 had an idea that the geniusheads at Microsoft failed to think of.

ISO 9660, the first widely used file system on optical discs, bypasses its own 4 GB file size limit by supporting multiple entries for the same file! So a 12 GB file can be represented as three entries for the same file name.

This is what future-proofing looks like.
If only Microsoft had had (sic.) this idea for FAT32 (and FAT16).

The "recycle bin" feature of Samsung "My Files" is amazing for data loss prevention when moving files out of the smartphone.

There used to be two ways to move files out of the smartphone to make space free. One is direct moving, the other is copy-deletion. The first is self-explanatory, the second means first copying the files and then deleting them on the phone.

Thanks to the the recycle bin, which keeps data for a month, files on the phone can be copied out and then put into the recycle bin instead of immediately deleted.

This means that if the copying was incomplete, there is a thirty-day grace period to get the files back from the phone.

The benefit of moving files instead of copy-deleting them is the lack of the deletion step. Moving files out directly does not have the emotional barrier of deleting the files from source like the deletion step of copy-deleting does.

Moving files feels like moving items to a new room, where as the deletion step after copying feels like destroying something.

So why not move files out? Because there is a risk of data loss if the device disconnects while files are moved to an USB OTG device. Due to write buffering, files that are moved out might be deleted on the phone shortly before they are completely written on the USB-OTG.

This is not an issue with MTP (Windows or Linux through USB cable) because the file systems are managed by the computer, so if the phone disconnects while files are moved out of the phone using MTP, the file system is kept intact by Windows or Linux.

Now, thanks to the recycle bin, there is no emotional barrier to deletion because the files on the phone are automatically deleted after 30 days in the absence of the user. The user can press the "delete" button without worries because of knowing "I can get it back until a month from now anyway".

Another severe UI fail by Google:

On stock Android 7, the expanded system control menu only shows FOUR controls per page in horizontal view.

Compare that to superior TouchWiz (by Samsung), which showed all 23 controls at once, as seen in the screenshot attached in a comment.

In addition, on TouchWiz, the user could tap multiple options at once. Tapping on a toggle would just turn a feature on or off, and opening a menu would require holding the toggle for a second.

On stock Android, tapping opens the menu, so turning a feature off requires three more taps to reach a toggle located inside the submenu and to then go back.

This makes deactivating multiple features on stock Android a finger workout.

I am not sure which other stock Android versions are like that because I couldn't find horizontal screenshots of the system control menu (or toggle menu, or whatever it is called).

Only four controls per page? Seriously, Google?

TouchWiz Android > stock Android > iOS.

A developer might think "now that computers have more RAM and an abundantly strong CPU, I am free to create resource-hungry inefficient software!"

This sets a dangerous precedent.

Computers can only get faster if the software stays efficient while the processors get faster and the RAM increases.

If computers get more powerful but software also gets more bloated and less efficient, it defeats the performance benefit.

Also, software must be efficient to extend the battery time on portable devices.

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

When fsck has a bad day…

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/...