I won't waste any more words on this.

Firefox. The activation area of its close button on tabs is only 14 by 14 pixels:

Chomium's is even smaller! 12 by 12 pixels! Do I look like a mouse-ninja to you?

Internet Explorer 8 only does it ever so slightly better with its 17 by 16 pixel buttons:

I'd understand it if there wasn't enough space available, but look at the screenshots above! Plenty of space left to make the button bigger. Just a couple of pixels can make such a difference! It could have been like this instead:

That's a whopping 24 by 23 pixels, without the rest of the tab having to give up any space to the button at all! You can even hide most of it if the mouse isn't near it, if you really care about aesthetics and such. In fact, Firefox's finder bar (that's the same application boys and girls!) does it a lot better with 21 by 20 pixels:

If they can do it in the finder bar, they can do it in the tabs, I say, darnit.  And here I was thinking Microsoft, and even Mozilla Foundation if my old alcohol-wornout brain remembers correctly, had all kinds of usability experts on their payroll? Guess this slipped through the cracks. Or maybe it was crack that inspired this shit in the first place, who knows.

This morning I got at work again, turned on my screen. Ah the migration had a crash… bummer.. Hey Windows installed some updates and is asking me if I am ok with restarting my computer. Of course I am not ok with that! I want to check out what went wrong first so I choose "Restart Later". There we go, let's go check out those migration results…

Approximately 5 minutes later the update manager reminds me again that there are pending updates. I am kinda boggled.. It's been about 2 years now since service pack 3 for Windows XP was released if I remember correct. Apparently they never found this bug before, but now that they found it it seems that every minute I wait without rebooting will make my machine prone to be used by elite hackers who will then use it for whatever.

I think to myself: 'ok apparently this update is very important so I better finish what I am doing and reboot ASAP'. So after pressing "Restart Later" for a second time I kind of forgot about that update manager again. So next thing you know I'm typing an email about the results of the migration and there is the update manager again, it steals my focus while I'm in the middle of typing an email so fairly short after it pops up I type the letter 'n' which I was using somewhere in my sentence and shortly after that it was followed by a lot of cursing and a nice "Windows is shutting down…" message.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

I always generate passwords which are rahter lenghty; say about 12 characters. Okay, how did this tool work again (I don't use it that often):

[todsah@jib]~$ pwgen --help
Usage: pwgen [ OPTIONS ] [ pw_length ] [ num_pw ]

Right, okay! Here we go! Let's generate five passwords with a length of twelve characters each (the -1 option is so it only prints one password per line):

[todsah@jib]~$ pwgen -1 12 5
she4gauY'i
xox0zahGh'
Jo1aikie"d
Uz3oudai-l
uGh1aij}ee
eecha`f8Hu
Ai-x4oigh2
heoz7puCh(
ahK9Il"eyi
eNae7zae:G
ox\ix0Eer"
eing1caeH\

Uh.. that's twelve passwords. And those aren't twelve characters long, those are ten. Did I not read it right? Should the length of the passwords and the number of passwords to generate be reversed? Let's try again:

todsah@jib]~$ pwgen -1 5 12
soop7li^X"
koHoo[qu2k
Bah#sh0phe
ooX0al{o8T
Uh6yaf+eiP

Ah, now it only prints five passwords, but they're still only ten characters in length. Damnit! There apparently is only one parameter. Perhaps there's an switch to specify the length then?

[todsah@jib]~$ pwgen --help
Usage: pwgen [ OPTIONS ] [ pw_length ] [ num_pw ]

Options supported by pwgen:
  -c or --capitalize
	Include at least one capital letter in the password
  -A or --no-capitalize
	Don't include capital letters in the password
  -n or --numerals
	Include at least one number in the password
  -0 or --no-numerals
	Don't include numbers in the password
  -y or --symbols
	Include at least one special symbol in the password
  -s or --secure
	Generate completely random passwords
  -B or --ambiguous
	Don't include ambiguous characters in the password
  -h or --help
	Print a help message
  -H or --sha1=path/to/file[#seed]
	Use sha1 hash of given file as a (not so) random generator
  -C
	Print the generated passwords in columns
  -1
	Don't print the generated passwords in columns
  -v or --no-vowels
	Do not use any vowels so as to avoid accidental nasty words

Soooooo, no, no switch to specify the length. There is, however a rather redundant -C option to turn on behaviour which is already turned on by default! That should come in handy. Not. Guess it's not just GNU that likes redundant options. Alright then, mofo's. I'll check the manual page.

       -N, --num-passwords=num
              Generate num passwords.  This defaults to a screenful if
              passwords are printed by columns, and one password.

So.. there's an extra switch -N to specify [ num_pw ] (which already works), but there is no extra switch to specify [ pw_length ] (which doesn't work)? Fuck ME!

Screw it, I'll just go back to ye olde reliable way of generating secure passwords

*bashes his keyboard a couple of times* FUCK pronounceable passwords. Fuck 'm.

Let's see what to do? Ah! Pinball Fantasies! It must have been ages since last I played that. Let's just start by playing the first table. Off we go!

Oh #(*&$% gonna lose my ball, gonna lose it.. gonna…

Thank you Microsoft! After almost 24 years of Windows you still seem to think that we all want to enable 'Sticky Keys' if we press 'shift' 5 times. Thank god they never removed the option to disable this pain in the ass feature!

So this one day you run into a great site and you feel like registering there. So you register and open up your 21st century mail-client which of course works in your 21st century browser and you open the mail. You find the link where you can log in. You are prompted with a HTTP authentication dialog.

"Ah, username and password" you think.. "in my mail, let me just.. hey WTF!?". That's a pity isn't it? There is absolutely no way you can do anything with your browser before you do something about that dialog. And the nice thing about HTTP authentication is that it asks up to 3 times for you to log in, even if you press 'Cancel'. Because who knows, perhaps you didn't want to press 'Cancel'.

Why can't i just interact with my browser when this thing pops up? Now for this particular case I had an easy username, but what if my username was not that easy and I would want to copy/paste both my username and password? I'd have to open my mail in a different browser window or copy/paste it to my favorite text editor. Thank you 21st century tabs!

If anybody is interested in writing a useful plugin for Firefox, please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top… write an extension that can log me out of HTTP basic authentication.

Rhythmbox: No stop button.

Totem: No stop button.

Qouaouid Libesomeshit: No stop button.

Listen Music Player: No stop button.

FAIL! Lesson: a pause button pauses playback. A stop button stops playback. The difference being that you CAN'T PAUSE A WEB STREAM. Nothing annoys me more than starting playback of an audio stream and having it start with whatever was left in the buffer only to stop after five seconds because it needs to connect to the actual web stream. Fuck. That. Also, I want to be able to start playing a song from the start; a need which the stop and start button nicely took care of. But since a stop button is apparently unnecessary, we now have backwards buttons that don't actually go backwards to the previous song, but restart playing the current song. What the @(#&!? Some media players don't even get that right, and the only way to restart a song is by dragging the progressbar back to the left. Genius!

Stop being such stubborn bastards and just put a stop button in the interface, please!

Fire it up!

Hm, no full screen.  Let's make it full screen!

Duhr.  No full screen option in the menu.  In fact, no options at all that are in anyway related to the video I'm watching.  Let's right click the video, maybe they hid it there.  Nope.  Nothing.  I would've posted a screenshot, but a screenshot of nothing happening isn't very exciting.

So fuck this, let's exit and try another movie-playing application.  Click the main window again, and lo! The full screen option appears:

Why there?  Really?  Doesn't it make sense to you people to integrate this all into one window?  Quicktime can do it.  Windows Media Player can do it.  DivX player can do it.  Okay, VLC can't do it, but at least it adds menu items to the viewer window.  Why do you have to be retarded, MPlayer?

But hey, why am I complaining?  I've found it right?  Let's click full screen and see what happens:

Full screen my shiny metal ass!  That's the menu bar up top there, and the main window right smack in the middle of my movie!  I'll go see what's on TV…