mibbit's comments

OK football was a bad choice. A better one would be learning about history. Some people enjoy learning history. Some don't.

Travel is something some people enjoy. Like playing football. Sure it's a skill, but it's one that not everyone will be good at, or enjoy.

Just to provide a counterpoint... If you don't enjoy, or want to travel, don't. Find something you do enjoy and do that instead.

It sounds like filling out TPS reports to me I'm afraid.

Some authors probably have tons of concurrent drafts of a novel they're writing. But I'll bet most have a single draft.

I'm afraid (to a fault), I am primarily a lone developer so this is the angle I come at these things from...

And there's a hell of a lot of bad developers out there.

As I say, I've worked in a team where branching was tried. It was a hinderance and slowed down development. I've never seen the point of branching for my own personal use.

Others may have different experiences, especially if they work on large teams.

The only reason I can see to "branch" is when you deploy code, make a copy of it in the repos, so that you can fix any bugs off it quickly.

A good developer can work with crappy tools and make great things.

Your last point is a good one, but it's sort of like arguing over gentoo/ubuntu/centOS. At the end of the day who really cares - none of them are windows, so they're all good enough.

Some people love working with branches. I don't.

It's down to how you work, who you're working with, and the processes you have in place.

My personal motto is just "don't break the build". It seems messy to me to create a ton of branches with broken stuff on them, having to remember the state of everything, what's been merged, what hasn't. I'd rather just write code to a single trunk. If I need to do big arch changes, I do them in bits that don't break the build.

Time is linear. So is my trunk. I develop linearly. I don't think in branches.

I can totally understand that other people see things a different way, and prefer to work like that. But I cannot. I tried. It was awful, painful and a waste of time.

So enough with the "This is better than this" mentality :)

The auto-update process should be far more secure than SSL certificates. They'll have keys in the current Chrome which it'll use to check any updates are legitimate before they get unpacked/installed.

Has IE switched to auto updating or anything?

I love the fact that Google can push changes out to Chrome users immediately. That's a massive win for everyone.

Click on the padlock, and it tells you all of that.

eg "The identity of this website has been verified by Thawte SGC CA."

One of the worst thing about this industry is the constant idolization of programmers, and languages by below average programmers.

> _why was one of the first to implement this, in 2005.

FWIW, I remember quite a few startups doing this around 1999. It's a very old idea.

heh yup. Bye for another 6 months!

hehe thanks. Unfortunately most of my work lately has been on scaling and keeping the service running smoothly. One day I'll get back to adding features and smartening things up :)

Good luck to envolve BTW, they have a good product I think, hopefully the're ready for the inevitable growing pains, attacks, etc etc

> Mibbit was the closest but it's a bit ugly

sob :(