Tested tbamud.com everything seemed to work except on:
Safari 3.1.1 (Windows XP)
and all but the following that did display it displayed it correctly as well (these few showed the page but lost some of the formatting, and coloring of background etc.)
Tested MW's development forums, All displayed properly except for:
IE 5.01 - Didn't handle the <div float:right> very well, and didn't like the translucent background to the banner. IE 5.5 - Same as 5.01 IE 6.0 - Handled the float, but still screwed up the image.
Dillo 0.8.6 on Linux - This one did not like the css AT ALL. None of it parsed. But that's expected from some browser I've never heard of.
Dillo 0.8.6 on Linux - This one did not like the css AT ALL. None of it parsed. But that's expected from some browser I've never heard of.
That's more or less by design. Dillo is intended to be a *very* lightweight GTK-based browser. All it does is parse and render HTML (and, very quickly, I might add – it can load Yahoo.com faster than Firefox can startup on my machine). So, don't sweat it if your CSS doesn't work; it ain't supposed to. :-)
You know that this site could be used to do some harm, i ran the test with all browsers selected on my web server, logged into the control panel to see the CPU usage hitting 177% it wouldn't take a lot to script up a few 100 tests an hour on someones web server and lag them to a halt, especially to those of us on VPS type systems where resources are finite and there is no load balancing going on.
You know that this site could be used to do some harm, i ran the test with all browsers selected on my web server, logged into the control panel to see the CPU usage hitting 177% it wouldn't take a lot to script up a few 100 tests an hour on someones web server and lag them to a halt, especially to those of us on VPS type systems where resources are finite and there is no load balancing going on.
Ouch. Personally, I tend to only use the "major" browsers, and I've only ever used it on my personal web site (which is hosted by my school), so I haven't run into that issue. Maybe Someone™ should send a mail to the site's maintainer about this?
I'm going to guess they've already thought of this possibility. When I went to check MudBytes using it, I found someone else already had and it served up the images it snapped the first time.
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
What the site is doing isn't really any different from any old denial-of-service attack. I could sit at my browser hitting "refresh" a lot and cause some trouble for a slow server.
Yes, but the difference here is that the site snaps up to 64 shots one time. It doesn't sit there hitting refresh over and over again, so a regular DoS attack would be far more effective.
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
That's what I meant… this site doesn't really pose a DoS risk.
check it out