- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

https unpleasantness

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

Hi, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:32:10AM +0000, corvid wrote: > I had upgraded slackware in recent weeks, so my openssl version > has gone from 0.9.8x to 1.0.1c, which may or may not be relevant > at all. At least on Debian dillo 3.0.2 builds fine with OpenSSL 1.0.1c: http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/dillo http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/libssl1.0.0 (currently version 1.0.1c) Just tried it on an uptodate Debian Unstable. And I don't use any patches against the original source. I just update config.guess, config.sub and friends to the autotools version in Debian. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Oct. 18, 2012

https unpleasantness

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:32:10AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > I recompiled the https dpi today, and it no longer wanted to work. > > I had upgraded slackware in recent weeks, so my openssl version > has gone from 0.9.8x to 1.0.1c, which may or may not be relevant > at all. > > The SSL_connect() was failing. > > Adding in some error-printing got me > "error:140770FC:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:unknown protocol". > > The search engine suggested that one possibility was that a server > could be displeased with a cipher that's offered, so I changed > SSL_set_cipher_list(ssl_connection, "ALL"); > to "TLSv1" randomly, and it now worked. > > https://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/ciphers.html shows lots of > possibilities, and I tried "DEFAULT". This worked as well. > It sounds like the difference is that the default doesn't include > aNULL ciphers. Another page says that aNULL means cipher suites > that do not offer authentication. > > I don't really know what's going on here, obviously. Neither me. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 18, 2012

https unpleasantness

by corvid＠lavabit.com

I recompiled the https dpi today, and it no longer wanted to work. I had upgraded slackware in recent weeks, so my openssl version has gone from 0.9.8x to 1.0.1c, which may or may not be relevant at all. The SSL_connect() was failing. Adding in some error-printing got me "error:140770FC:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:unknown protocol". The search engine suggested that one possibility was that a server could be displeased with a cipher that's offered, so I changed SSL_set_cipher_list(ssl_connection, "ALL"); to "TLSv1" randomly, and it now worked. https://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/ciphers.html shows lots of possibilities, and I tried "DEFAULT". This worked as well. It sounds like the difference is that the default doesn't include aNULL ciphers. Another page says that aNULL means cipher suites that do not offer authentication. I don't really know what's going on here, obviously.

Oct. 18, 2012

website readability/appearance

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > What do you think of tmp1 and tmp2? The first one makes me think "for children" somehow. With the second one, I like the gray but not so much the purple...

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Rogut?s wrote: > I find the colors of corvid's version ok, but the whole visual appearance > looks dated. Do you have any thoughts on what a more contemporary appearance consists of?

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:47:18PM +0300, Rogut??s Sparnuotos wrote: > corvid (2012-10-10 16:49): > > Jorge wrote: > > > IIRC your problem with the current color scheme was fuzzy contrast > > > on your monitor. A technical issue, similar OTOH to high contrast > > > headaches. > > > > Everything appears okay on my current one. The one that I had a few years > > ago had grown dim and reddish. > > > > > AFAIR long ago people preferred the current scheme over presented > > > alternatives, despite the low contrast issue being acknowledged. I > > > assume a trade off for aesthetics. > > > > Part of it is that I would look around to see what people were saying > > about dillo, and there would be comments that the dillo developers must > > be colorblind. And part of it is that, after changing monitors, I > > particularly haven't liked the purple. > > dillo.org colors look very bad to me. The white text on blueish background > would be ok, but the background for headings and the gray color for links > makes it all unbearable to my taste. > > I find the colors of corvid's version ok, but the whole visual appearance > looks dated. > > I am merely a bystander and my intention is to express my opinion, not > criticism. What do you think of the 3 alternatives presented? -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:49:38PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > [...] > > As aesthetics is a matter of personal taste, I've prepared a couple > > of alternatives with better contrast palette: > > > > http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp1.html > > http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp2.html > > > > I like both over "dillo2.html". > > > > I like tmp1 for its lively colors (though "waterish"), and also > > like tmp2 for its more integrated "airish" palette (a bit "serious" too). > > I looked around the web a little bit at the time with firefox to see what > the style of the day is, and there seemed to be a lot of whites and pale > grays and pale blues. What do you think of tmp1 and tmp2? > > > PS I wonder about the anybrowser gif in the sidebar. It screams 1996 to me. > > > > It can be replaced with something better. > > Let's see... A couple that appeal to me are: > > http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/bvgraphics/anyb02.png > > http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/bvgraphics/abblue.gif Yes, both look much better. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by rogutes＠googlemail.com

corvid (2012-10-10 16:49): > Jorge wrote: > > IIRC your problem with the current color scheme was fuzzy contrast > > on your monitor. A technical issue, similar OTOH to high contrast > > headaches. > > Everything appears okay on my current one. The one that I had a few years > ago had grown dim and reddish. > > > AFAIR long ago people preferred the current scheme over presented > > alternatives, despite the low contrast issue being acknowledged. I > > assume a trade off for aesthetics. > > Part of it is that I would look around to see what people were saying > about dillo, and there would be comments that the dillo developers must > be colorblind. And part of it is that, after changing monitors, I > particularly haven't liked the purple. dillo.org colors look very bad to me. The white text on blueish background would be ok, but the background for headings and the gray color for links makes it all unbearable to my taste. I find the colors of corvid's version ok, but the whole visual appearance looks dated. I am merely a bystander and my intention is to express my opinion, not criticism. -- Rogut?s

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > IIRC your problem with the current color scheme was fuzzy contrast > on your monitor. A technical issue, similar OTOH to high contrast > headaches. Everything appears okay on my current one. The one that I had a few years ago had grown dim and reddish. > AFAIR long ago people preferred the current scheme over presented > alternatives, despite the low contrast issue being acknowledged. I > assume a trade off for aesthetics. Part of it is that I would look around to see what people were saying about dillo, and there would be comments that the dillo developers must be colorblind. And part of it is that, after changing monitors, I particularly haven't liked the purple. > As aesthetics is a matter of personal taste, I've prepared a couple > of alternatives with better contrast palette: > > http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp1.html > http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp2.html > > I like both over "dillo2.html". > > I like tmp1 for its lively colors (though "waterish"), and also > like tmp2 for its more integrated "airish" palette (a bit "serious" too). I looked around the web a little bit at the time with firefox to see what the style of the day is, and there seemed to be a lot of whites and pale grays and pale blues. > > PS I wonder about the anybrowser gif in the sidebar. It screams 1996 to me. > > It can be replaced with something better. Let's see... A couple that appeal to me are: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/bvgraphics/anyb02.png http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/bvgraphics/abblue.gif

Oct. 10, 2012

website readability/appearance

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:15:33AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Back in February, I was playing around with the website appearance > a bit. Today I happened upon that file again, and I still rather like > the look of it. > > http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.html > > Any thoughts? IIRC your problem with the current color scheme was fuzzy contrast on your monitor. A technical issue, similar OTOH to high contrast headaches. AFAIR long ago people preferred the current scheme over presented alternatives, despite the low contrast issue being acknowledged. I assume a trade off for aesthetics. As aesthetics is a matter of personal taste, I've prepared a couple of alternatives with better contrast palette: http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp1.html http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo2.tmp2.html I like both over "dillo2.html". I like tmp1 for its lively colors (though "waterish"), and also like tmp2 for its more integrated "airish" palette (a bit "serious" too). > PS I wonder about the anybrowser gif in the sidebar. It screams 1996 to me. It can be replaced with something better. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 10, 2012