Forum:Why does Uncyclopedia look like shit on Safari
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Why does Uncyclopedia look like shit on Safari
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5538 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Seriously, I'm seeing shit like this all over the place, plus my JavaScript is breaking. Does MediaWiki not like Safari/Chrome for some reason? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:07 Dec 18, 2009
- Safari and Chrome? Get a real web browser like Mozilla Firefox that is out of alpha and beta tests and supports the modern HTML5 standards that MediaWiki supports. Safari is a half-baked KHTML spawn and Chrome lacks a lot of features like plugins, profiles, and modern HTML and javascript rendering. Every time I install Safari on my Windows system it wants to download Quicktime/iTunes and Bonjour and other stuff I don't want but it silently installs it anyway. Chrome installs Google Apps silently on me as well as it includes Spyware and the SRWare Iron is the open source version of Chrome without the spyware in it. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 06:22, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Orion, where would I check to see if Chrome has been installing things behind my back? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 06:55, Dec 18 2009
- Wow! That successfully circumnavigated my question entirely. In fairness, I use Firefox as well. And Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera, and a few text-based browsers in case I don't feel like I'm challenging myself enough. I would link you to articles that undermine your claims, but I have more important things to be doing. *returns to IRC* – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:49 Dec 19, 2009
- You wouldn't look at a short person and ask "Why does this person look short with these glasses?" It's not the browser. It's the site. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- You might if he looks normal with that other set of glasses. --Mn-z 16:35, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Works okay in Firefox, but I'm trying to get away from it because (at least on OS X) it's exactly the opposite of genocide. That is to say, it's really inefficient and eats up space instead of regaining it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:49 Dec 19, 2009
God, how I've missed DrSkullthumper and his incessant complaining. -OptyC Sucks! 
CUN17:04, 18 Dec
- There's a space between Dr and Skullthumper, as well as a period. You fuckarse. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:49 Dec 19, 2009
- Why do you have to make everything about you? Can't you let DrSkullthumper have his moment in the sun? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:40, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Chrome works fine here, you should upgrade. Firefox is laggy MS slut. --194.197.235.240 12:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
- Safari looks fine here. N Chrome is fa bichiz.
+
=
21:06,19December,2009 - This thread is not about which browser any of us should be using. Any properly developed website should be able to display on multiple browsers without crapping itself. Also, by the way, Chrome and Safari use the same rendering engine. If I facepalmed any harder, I'd end up with brain juices all over my hands. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:06 Dec 19, 2009
- Dork. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:11, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
- The key word in that statement is "properly developed". You might get better results if you contact wikia staff of their talk pages. This forum post is probably going to degenerate into a browser argument. Also, anyone who uses a browser other than Firefox is gay and stupid and ugly and retarted and fat, and, I HOPE THEY GET SOME SICK. --Mn-z 23:17, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
- Serves you right for using a browser that doesn't start in Mozilla and end in Firefox. --ALI'S GONNA SHOOT YOU IN THE BALLS BITCH 16:10, December 22, 2009 (UTC)