Enquiring mind(s) want(s) to know...

[pieces o nine]

Dear Keepers of the Sekrit IT Sekrits:

So I was typing up this question last night when the Monastery abruptly went under-cover-AWOL. Let's see if I make more progress this time, as I hope that wasn't the Great Whatever hinting that my question is silly...

How does the Monastery (or any other site) 'know' which threads are new to me each time I log on?  Moreover, the Monastery even 'knows' which post within a thread I read last! This is incredible, or worrisome, perhaps depending upon one's level of paranoia.

I am curious how this process works and am willing to exchange sekrit knowledge in my own arcane fields of Pleasing Color Theory, or Why Some Type Faces Are Legible at Any Size, or What Is Up with the Mona Lisa's Eyebrows, that sort of thing...

Signed,
Anxiously awaiting a "Show unread posts since last visit" update in the Ocean o'Sand

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Some information is saved in the database, and some other locally in your computer likely in a cookie. I don't know the exact details on the innards of SMF, but it isn't too difficult to save every time your user looks a thread and mark it as read and possibly the date, which is more for your benefit than any one else, and cannot be easily seen to anybody else.

Nothing to worry for now dear sibling, I doubt anyone will get in trouble for reading this or that thread. If we get in trouble it would be for being in the monastery in the first place...

[Griffin NoName]

Zono has explained well but here's my tuppenceworth. The Monastery database makes a record when you click to read a post. So it knows next time you come back. The world does not know. Only the Monastery. Only Monastery admins can look at such detail, and we don't bother, as it is of no interest! (sorry if that disappoints you) (I assume I can speak for the other admins  ). Of course a hacker could theoretically find out............. but this is so remotely absurd except in cases of extreme paranoia. Who would be interested enough in any Toadfish and our ramblings? (If people were, we'd have a lot more members ).

[pieces o nine]

Thanks for the replies, sibs.

The bit about paranoia was intended to be humorous -- I'm not worried about anyone tracking me (they would have to have a dull life to do this, and alas, it would remain so). I was just curious how it worked because going directly to new posts within a thread seemed neat.

Please *do* keep me in mind if you're ever losing sleep over the Mona Lisa's eyebrows.   

[Sibling DavidH]

So there aren't really any little gnomes at the Monastery who write it all down on a huge parchment scroll with quill pens?  Ooh, I'm so disappointed.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Gnome slavery is outdated and frowned upon, be mindful that enforcement is provided by goblins and fines must be paid in gold.

[pieces o nine]

Which raises a question: are the squidlings being properly remunerated?

[Aggie]

As far as they're concerned, they own the place. We're apparently working for them.

[Bluenose]

As far as they're concerned, they own the place. We're apparently working for them.

Oh!  That's a relief!  I thought they were hanging around waiting for me to trip over my robe so they could eat me...

[Swatopluk]

This thread seems to be as good as any other to ask this question:

Where does Mozilla Firefox store the cookies under Windows Vista?

I cannot find a cookie folder as under ME or XP.
When I send my laptop in for repair, it is highly probable that they will reset the software to the original state. That means I will have to reinstall Mozilla (I already saved the bookmarks). Although I know about the evil of cookies, a number of them also store the access data to their respective sites. I know it is a real pain in the arse to get through all the confirmation hoops (again) at several sites I regularly use. So, I would prefer to save at least some of the cookies to avoid that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

This thread seems to be as good as any other to ask this question:

Where does Mozilla Firefox store the cookies under Windows Vista?

I cannot find a cookie folder as under ME or XP.
When I send my laptop in for repair, it is highly probable that they will reset the software to the original state. That means I will have to reinstall Mozilla (I already saved the bookmarks). Although I know about the evil of cookies, a number of them also store the access data to their respective sites. I know it is a real pain in the arse to get through all the confirmation hoops (again) at several sites I regularly use. So, I would prefer to save at least some of the cookies to avoid that.

If you have not changed any of the default settings, it ought to be:  (note:  you need to have checked SHOW HIDDEN under TOOLS-->FOLDER OPTIONS---VIEW (in Windows Explorer)

C:\Users\the log-in-name-you-use¹\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile\xxx²\Cache\<cache-files-here>

¹ this will normally be your name, but could be 'Administrator' or 'Valued Customer' or 'UserName' or some other nonsensical value, if your system was pre-setup when you bought it.   To be sure?  Click START then go to LOG OFF or SWITCH USERS, or go to Control Panel, then USERS to see a list of users.  You want the default login name.

² 'xxx' will actually be a string of nonsense letters and numbers, usually 12 character/numbers with a <dot> and 3 more random character/numbers.

If you wish to save everything?  Copy the entire folder 'XXX' somewhere safe, including all sub-folders to some other disk drive or a FLASH drive.  Then when you get it back, go looking for the new nonsensical named folder under PROFILES and copy everything UNDER the old nonsense-name on top of the contents of the NEW nonsense-name-- this should restore all your stuff, including extensions, cookies, memorized passwords & log-ins.

Firefox really is not all that secure, if you have access to the physical computer's drive... 

[Swatopluk]

Thank, I'll look for that. I guessed it might be hidden but I think I have not yet followed the path you gave to find out.

I don't save passwords. This site here is, I think, the almost the  only one where I use permanent log-in.

[Swatopluk]

Actually the XXX is loidjt20.default and contains almost 1GB. In the cache folder below there is a huge number of folders and subfolders coded in hexadecimal (single character 1 to F on the upper folders and 2 characters 1 to F on the subfolders).
The folders were indeed hidden.

[Griffin NoName]

I used to be able to find cookies really easily pre IE9/Vista. Now I can't. I don't call that progress.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually the XXX is loidjt20.default and contains almost 1GB. In the cache folder below there is a huge number of folders and subfolders coded in hexadecimal (single character 1 to F on the upper folders and 2 characters 1 to F on the subfolders).
The folders were indeed hidden.

That's it-- that's your cache, including the cookies, as far as I know.   I've used this save and recovery to restore/move FF from one OS re-install to the next, quite successfully in the past.

I used to be able to find cookies really easily pre IE9/Vista. Now I can't. I don't call that progress.

It's a conspiracy:  they really don't want you to know....



In truth, I suspect that they hide it to avoid Aunt Jane or Uncle Fester from messing with it...

[Bluenose]

I  had a similar issue when I recently replaced my PC. The solution is to use the sync function in Firefox. This allows you to save and recover all your settings, bookmarks etc.  It also allows you to sync these beteen different devices, so I now have the same on my notebook as my main PC.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I  had a similar issue when I recently replaced my PC. The solution is to use the sync function in Firefox. This allows you to save and recover all your settings, bookmarks etc.  It also allows you to sync these beteen different devices, so I now have the same on my notebook as my main PC.

This would require you to update to the latest version... something I have not done.  I hates the latest version's user interface so much, when the inevatible happens and I'm forced to update?  It will be "Goodbye FireFox, it's been a nice 12 year run, but you are done" and "Hello, Chrome!"

I already have chrome, and it's UI is okay-- superior to the latest "gesture-ruined" FF.... I'm still on FF 3.6.28, the last known "old school" flavor AFAIK.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

You don't have to use the new interface if you don't want to, just set the menu toolbar visible and it looks the same as the older versions. Personally I like the new interface, it saves vertical space (same pinning the tabs horizontally).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

You don't have to use the new interface if you don't want to, just set the menu toolbar visible and it looks the same as the older versions. Personally I like the new interface, it saves vertical space (same pinning the tabs horizontally).

Then they changed it drastically from when I first tried it out over on my laptoppy-- about a year ago? Or so.

Perhaps I should give it a re-go-- but the frustration factor of not having my usual buttons, menus, etc, sent me through the roof-- I do not need to re-invent the wheel.... I like the old wheel just like it was, square-spokes and all thankyouverymuch....

[Bluenose]

You don't have to use the new interface if you don't want to, just set the menu toolbar visible and it looks the same as the older versions. Personally I like the new interface, it saves vertical space (same pinning the tabs horizontally).

Yes, I like it too.  The biggest issue for me was the new behaviour of the back button.  Once I realised all I had to do was to right-click on the back button to see my recent history, I was happay as a pig in shyte.  

[Griffin NoName]

You don't have to use the new interface if you don't want to, just set the menu toolbar visible and it looks the same as the older versions. Personally I like the new interface, it saves vertical space (same pinning the tabs horizontally).

Yes, I like it too.  The biggest issue for me was the new behaviour of the back button.  Once I realised all I had to do was to right-click on the back button to see my recent history, I was happay as a pig in shyte.  

LoL you've solved my issue with IE9.

[Aggie]

Oh yes, that's how you do it. I knew that was possible, but forgot how.  The back-button drop-down menu was much more obvious.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... argh... why do these idiots feel the need to "improve" things, when the current methods are more than sufficient?

It's not as if we were doing rocket science, where optimizing the user interface would actually save the astronaut's lives...


... meh.

[Aggie]

The same reason that supermarket and shopping centre layouts have gotten much more confusing and illogical (on purpose) over the last few decades....  if you're bewildered as &#(%, you're statistically more likely to buy more $#!^.  How this directly relates to browsers, I'm not sure, especially with relation to FF (Chrome is much more clear-cut in terms of Google's lust for dominance, as it ties in neatly to other Google services).

Also, the younger generations of users are much more geared to constant change and have shorter attention spans than us old farts - there may actually be a competitive advantage to constant visible updates.

P'raps there should be an open-source project to continuously improve the security and efficiency of a browser, but keep the user interface constant (with maybe a few minor graphics improvements) over time.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

UI design is an art and it's very hard to have all your users happy about it. The main drivers are efficiency, ease of use (ie intuitive) and user requests. Currently in browsers there is a desire to save vertical space in the interface as most monitors are widescreen and everybody and their aunt have a toolbar to push, so trying to maximize the real state for the content is one of the drivers. Others are how quickly can you perform a particular task, and what are the most common tasks you want to perform so that those are forefront and the others require more clicks. Lastly there is resistance to change as with any other thing, the fact that an interface is more efficient and quicker doesn't mean that it will be adopted if the users refuse to embrace the new paradigm. An older example of this is the QWERTY vs DVORAK keyboards in which the 2nd is more efficient but common use of the first makes a change almost impossible. Bob hates the new FF interface, I personally hate the MS ribbon on their later office suites, and so on.

IOW, I wouldn't be so quick to judge the decision of the designers.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Zono: re M$ ribbon... I skipped that entirely.  The last M$ office suite I used was 2000, which I abandoned in roughly 2004.  I use Open Office now, and have been since abandoning M$.

As for the QWERTY vs DVORAK issue?  It seems the tests were not scientific, and there is no actual proof that DVORAK is more efficient than QWERTY for the average typist, or so I've read.

Intuitively, the DVORAK ought to be better, but is it really? 

I considered switching several times, but the need to be able to use any kb anywhere has always stayed my hand.... oh well.   Some day?  We'll just think at the machine, instead of clumsy fingerboarding...

[Griffin NoName]

  Some day?  We'll just think at the machine, instead of clumsy fingerboarding...

They already have this for some disabled.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110418152334.htm

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

  Some day?  We'll just think at the machine, instead of clumsy fingerboarding...

They already have this for some disabled.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110418152334.htm

Yes... I know... and I wasn't kidding.

[Griffin NoName]

Actually the XXX is loidjt20.default and contains almost 1GB. In the cache folder below there is a huge number of folders and subfolders coded in hexadecimal (single character 1 to F on the upper folders and 2 characters 1 to F on the subfolders).
The folders were indeed hidden.

That's it-- that's your cache, including the cookies, as far as I know.   I've used this save and recovery to restore/move FF from one OS re-install to the next, quite successfully in the past.

IE has an export cookies functiion.  

^^ Zono. Totally agree. Actually when I designed and programmed interfaces for clients they would always find ways of using them which I never envisaged. So necessity to build in some protective featuers to stop total misuse of an interface also may dictate some features (even though one does not exactly know what one is stopping happening )

[Roland Deschain]

Actually when I designed and programmed interfaces for clients they would always find ways of using them which I never envisaged. So necessity to build in some protective featuers to stop total misuse of an interface also may dictate some features (even though one does not exactly know what one is stopping happening )

I'm not sure if you have any idea how widespread this issue is. Expand this into a piece of software as complex as a computer game or operating system, and you'll find the number of bugs rising exponentially, especially when you factor in programmer/coder error. It's so much fun breaking software, and once you get the knack of it, it's a piece of cake. I once single-handedly managed to crash an Apple iMac (or one of those Apple ones) three times in one week. It was a record in the office.

[Griffin NoName]

Actually when I designed and programmed interfaces for clients they would always find ways of using them which I never envisaged. So necessity to build in some protective featuers to stop total misuse of an interface also may dictate some features (even though one does not exactly know what one is stopping happening )

I'm not sure if you have any idea how widespread this issue is.
...................
It's so much fun breaking software, and once you get the knack of it, it's a piece of cake. I once single-handedly managed to crash an Apple iMac (or one of those Apple ones) three times in one week. It was a record in the office.

Yes I do. I did it for a living for seven years - cured those bugs that is. I am ace at breaking s/w, I do it all the time, I am also good at complaining to approppriate s/w manufacturers - getting them to admit that the bug does exist is one of my endless missions in life. In short, I am the customer they should appreciate* but generally hate.

*testing their betas which they have put out as alphas.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I code and my babies don't have bugs, those are features...

[Griffin NoName]

When I was coding, code written during the morning, early part of afternoon, would have "features"; code written later in the day and in the evening would be entirely "feature" free. Expecting me to be in at work by 9 a.m. was just stupid.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I did not produce code with bugs.   Those places where the code did not work as expected were deliberate.   I like surprises.

<whistles>

[Bluenose]

I once wrote a program on a very short time line.  I spent a week with paper and pencil designing the program structure and testing plan before I wrote a single line of code. After three goes to get a clean compile - pesky typos etc.  I then ran the test plan.  The program passed every test.  I tried to think of further tests.  It passed those.  It went onto production without having a single change from my first clean compile.  I was sweating bricks I can tell you.  The program worked perfectly so far as I know until I left the company - obvously I have no idea what happened after that.  It was the most terrifying experience of my life!

[Roland Deschain]

Lol. "Purposeful features", eh?

I tested software professionally for 3.5 years, and even if I do say so myself, I was damn good at it, lol. It's shocking how easy it is to miss something in really complex code, or for the weirdest things to happen, such as when you think that what you've done will work, and logically it should, but then as soon as someone gets their hands on it, the thing breaks.

I've seen code released with some heinous, and also hilarious, bugs that there was no time to fix before the submission dates (third-party publisher). The attitude at some software developers, although i'd tend to say it's the publishers more often than not, appears to be that if it's broken on release, you can always patch it instead of holding back the release date.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... The attitude at some software developers, although i'd tend to say it's the publishers more often than not, appears to be that if it's broken on release, you can always patch it instead of holding back the release date.

Back in the DOS days of computer games, there was a particular computer game company that was notorious for doing exactly that-- and this was in the days before the intertubes-- you had to modem into their servers, at 1200 baud (or so)-- if you could get an open line, that is-- and download the patch.

Frequently?  The patch was on their server before the game hit the shelves (if the patch's date was accurate...).

I quit buying their games after awhile-- mainly because the patches were as buggy as the original release, and would break something else (while fixing something already broken).   The company had a really auspicious start, with several really well done games at the beginning.  But the rush to cash in on those excellent games made them produce garbage.  They folded, eventually.   And dammit, I cannot remember their name-- nearly 30 years? -- ago it was, I guess.

Aaah the heady days of 8 bit graphics...

[Roland Deschain]

Lol, Bob. That sounds about right. Most game patches are release day patches these days, especially for the console market, and usually when the issues are online ones. Release date is what publishers work on, so the rest falls by the wayside if it has to.

As an aside, if you've ever played the game Worms (the original), and chosen the "Team 17" team, you would have noticed a worm named "Gonz". "Gonz" was a tester on the original game, as were all the worms in that team, and I worked with him for a couple of years.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Ha!  No, I never played that one...