I just don't know why MS spends so much time shooting itself in it's feet. So much talent and promising product gets burned for indecipherable reasons.
(use-package read-aloud :ensure t)
(setq read-aloud-engine "say")
(use-package nov :ensure t)
(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.epub\\'" . nov-mode))
(bind-key* "M-SPC" 'read-aloud-buf)
* It has a retention policy that ensures a data breach five years down the road won't compromise five years' worth of relevant data. 30 days of full data + maybe an year of relevant analytics (but no detailed data) are more than enough to improve software. Five years' worth of data, even if it's not strictly speaking personal data, can make identity theft trivial.
* The processes and criteria for who gets to access that data and in what manner are clear, transparent, enforceable and can be subjected to appeal by any user. Can I be reasonably sure (i.e. based on public, legally-binding statements from Microsoft) that, for instance, a Microsoft employee who has a beef with me won't be able to stalk me based on that data?
* For a large system or a piece of hardware, if I can have a reasonable assurance that, at least in the short-term (1-2 years), the data won't end up being used for ad targeting. An OS or a piece of hardware is something that you don't switch that often. If I make a purchase, I'd like to be sure that the reasons why I made it remain valid for a while.
"Makes the product better" is a great reason and I'd wholeheartedly support that, as long as I had an assurance that my data is handled responsibly.
I'm just sayin' -- if I break the terms of doing business with Microsoft (e.g. by using a pirated copy), there's a good chance that some DMCA organization comes knocking at my door and the best I can hope for is an out-of-court settlement that ruins me. I sure as hell expect that, if Microsoft breach the terms of doing business, someone can go knocking at their door and the best they can hope for is an out-of-court settlement that ruins them. That's why I insist on "legally binding". A blog post that says we totally don't spy on you is something that you can breach without any real consequences.
Until that's the case (or, you know, until there's no data being siphoned...) I can do my work on Linux just fine, I don't need no damn WSL :-).
I think only 1 type of telemetry shouldn't ask for permission, a quick, anonymous ping to say it's been installed.
Sure, but for it to be anonymous it should not contain the sender's IP address. That probably means an UDP message with nulled source ip, which runs foul of many ISP's egress filters (and rightly so).
So, realistically speaking, there is no such thing as an anonymous ping. Or am I missing an obvious solution here?
If millions want to provide telemetry that's enough to make the product better. Why have other millions who don't want suffer it?
Not sure which I like better.
If you were around since the 1990s, you'd notice that Google learned this from Microsoft.
Removing a (great) feature that almost no one uses, in a product that is being sunset is shooting oneself in the foot?
Mac OS guides are also a very good editorial/digital work. (but no videos?). The guides on MacOS look very simple and clean. I appreciate when the software I buy has a guide like that (pixelmator) and not just a link to a website (sketch). I know the required effort so I value them a lot.
Even notepad’s documentation has gotten worse over the years. In Windows 8.1, notepad doesn’t even mention the “.LOG” automatic date/time add feature.
(the generator actually comes from Free Pascal, but the viewer is only on Lazarus)
What’s wrong with this? It looks grammatically correct to me…
"Unfortunately, we won't be renewing our contract with you"
"We regret to inform you that we will be going with another candidate"
Changing those to the simple future makes them sound much harsher to my ears, so I would venture that the progressive is a mechanism for softening the impact.
This is answered in the next sentence of the article: it’s “support” not “be supporting,” Microsoft.
The is using the future continuous when the simple future is more appropriate to the message.
That said, "will no longer support" is more succinct and clear enough.
That's not an answer to "What's wrong with this?", that's the author's preferred wording.
Both the future and simple versions are appropriate, whereas the author makes it a point to highlight their preference.
And of course here we are, poking it further.
(1) You are responding to a quote about a proposed rewrite of the sentence which would be clearly wrong independent of whether the quoted text was (the “less correct” was chosen because the proposal asked if it would be “more correct”), and
(2) No, there's no such requirement for the use of “[sic]”; use for things which are not strictly incorrect but not comport to a stylistic preference of the author presenting the quote (or one that the author expects the audience to have) is common. For instance, Google's dictionary's usage example for it is “a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [sic] life.” What the “[sic]” flags is grammatically correct, though recently usually stylistically not-preferred.
“e-books that use the .epub file extension, Microsoft Edge will no longer support”
Yes they do. Rarely used, unmaintained code is a great way to accrue security vulnerabilities and other bugs.
EPUB is a container format. It's basically an encapsulated multi-page website with some metadata. The marginal effort for a web browser is unpacking the files with a ZIP library and deciding how going from chapter001.html to chapter002.html works inside the existing UI. If you don't want to think much about the latter, render each page exactly as if it were downloaded from an online website, and use the forward and back buttons to step along the built in reading order.
I actually wonder why all web browsers don't support it natively.
Other bugs, sure, but since when did presence of bugs prevent anyone - much less Microsoft - from shipping anything? Especially since the whole browser is going away anyway, so there's no long term burden.
a. How well did that work out? and b. How does the ‘tech community’ view Microsoft for that choice?
It was a great app and I hoped it would become as versatile as Preview on Mac.
It was annoying when I double clicked a EPUB (or PDF) it would open the browser and sometimes all my tabs from last session would open and in most cases just the EPUB would open and I lose the previous browsing session.
This needs to be a dedicated app separate from the browser. I hope they have something in the works.
I've experimented with using mpv controlled over json IPC as a FOSS substitute to quicklook, which works well for media but not documents...
Did they really expect a solid ePub reader to be a significant selling point for the browser?
Well it was the only reason I ever opened Edge, so it kind of worked?
Reading a book and browsing web are fundamentally different activities and need different UX and business logic. Putting book reading capabilities to a browser makes the code base bloated in my opinion.
And I don't think reading a book and browsing the web are fundamentally different activities. They're near-identical. The web was created as a way to access documents consisting of text, images, and links to other points within the current document or to other documents. A book is a document consisting of text, images, and links to other points within the current document (endnotes, footnotes, "see page X") or to other documents (references/citations). The UX and features you'd want for a book reader are the same you'd want for a browser's Reader Mode, as implemented by Edge, Firefox, and Safari. I don't see any difference between reading an ePub file and reading a long article on a website.
SumatraPDF is fine to read EPUBs on Windows (also supports PDF, MOBI, FB2, CHM, XPS, DjVu) - it's free, open-source software .
Epubs are basically zipped HTML. How hard would it have been to leave basic support?
So now one has to "freeze" Edge to keep epub support.
I doubt it is as easy as moving Edge to a different folder. Probably need to mess with regedit as well.
At least, that's the dream.
Well, good. Now we can go back to when browsers handed files off to helper apps that supported the formats in question. I'm all for it.
strange cultural shift
A natural question is: is edge still going to be the default PDF reader in Windows? And will edge's pdf viewer look just like chrome's
EPubs are perfect for long-lengthy documents, where you can bookmark position to given line of text (not page, so I'd say it's more precise to get back in which paragraph you've finished reading), everything is searchable/copyable/highlightable, formatted into single-column, usually justified, wrapped using hyphenation, easy to change font size, colors (i.e. day/night mode) and there isn't strict paper (canvas) size. Basically, it increases accessibility and focus.
While the PDF is just like a ZIP (I think those formats share the same popularity), that consist collection of numbered crisp, anti-aliased PNGs and SVGs, sometimes with an attached metadata. I often hear, there isn't any chance to PDF document look different on other device. However, PDF is just a subset of PostScript (hence the name) and has many versions (standardized as a public document, by ISO, by other parties or just paywalled). Fortunately, quite old PDF1.5 version has majority of features used by typical document creator, also fact that there aren't many competing implementations and they seem to be up-to-date with PDF2.0 convinced users and developers to use it. That's worth noting, PDF supports reflow , but it is far from perfect and I guess many bookworms will refrain from using it at all.
Why? Instead of opening a PDF like any other webpage, or image, or video, etc. Which is instant and doesn't require any mental focus shifting, I should instead download the PDF, and use a PDF viewer instead?
For something so ubiquitous it seems kind of silly. Browsers are for browsing and consuming content, if a specific type of content has widespread usage, I see no reason not to include it.
Opening URLs from the browser to native apps specialized for their format shouldn't be non-instant or require any mental focus shifting.
> Browsers are for browsing and consuming content
"Browser" is short of "Web Browser". They're meant primarily for HTML pages. General "browsing and consuming content" is too broad. You're including file managers and multimedia players in that. There's no reason to concentrate everything into a single program. Shifting between specialized applications should be seamless. If it's not, the window manager / desktop environment is lacking configuration / features.
> if a specific type of content has widespread usage, I see no reason not to include it.
Because you end up with a bloated mess. The modern web browser is an OS inside an OS.
I don't see how you get from the first of these statements to the second. Web browsers browse the web—an interlinked set of hypertext documents. A "hypertext document" being anything that embeds URLs you can tell the browser to navigate to, usually by clicking. A PDF is a "hypertext document."
> There's no reason to concentrate everything into a single program.
An ePub is also a hypertext document, though. And one that is made out of HTML and CSS files! Would you suggest that a web browser shouldn't be able to open an MHTML archive? Because an ePub is almost exactly the same format, just with a different base CSS style + media selector. (There are some restrictions on scriptability, but from what I recall those are ePub UA restrictions, not restrictions in the standard.)
> Shifting between specialized applications should be seamless.
What if you could shift between specialized applications... inside other applications? Remember OLE? That's how web browsers have traditionally displayed most formats. The whole need for special plugins for QuickTime, Flash, ActiveX, Java, etc. was just to allow those formats to be embedded in HTML pages. But if you're just opening a URL in the web browser and handing the viewport over to a COM component to render—browsers (and many other types of applications) do that just fine, without any need for "concentrating everything into a single program."
PDFium is an an acceptable rendering engine for simpler PDF files, but doesn’t handle complex files very well (resulting in crashes or rendering inaccuracies). Same with PDF.js. Unless the browsers step up, these issues will continue to get worse.