HTML5 geolocation more accurate on Windows than Linux (Firefox, Chrome, [Chromium]) - linux

I've been playing with HTML5 geolocation and noticed that I get consistently better results on my Windows system than on my Linux system.
I dual boot, so hardware is identical. Wifi is on in both scenarios, and there's no GPS adapter built in.
By more accurate I mean that on Windows the location shown is usually within 50-100m of my actual location, while on Linux the location is off by ~6km (and it never varies, it always shows the exact same location, basically the city center).
Tested on Chrome and Firefox on Windows, and Chrome, Chromium and Firefox on Linux.
Update: Just tested on Safari/Mac OSX. Same precision as in Windows. So Linux is the only system with bad results :(
Can anybody reproduce this? Do Firefox and Chrome on Linux not make use of the WiFi as an additional source of location information? What else am I missing here?
Thanks for your valuable input!

Acording to this article: HTML5 geolocation accuracy
Not all Geolocation services are the same, and they certainly don’t all use the same algorithms and exact same databases. Because of this the results typically vary across browsers that use different Geolocation services.
It also explains that Firefox on Windows uses Google Location Services. Firefox on Linux uses GPSD, GPS daemon is a service for geolocation on Linux.
That may be the reason for the difference in accuracy.

Related

Intermittent Issue with SCAN_Enable error on app load

I acquired a batch of WT0490 wearable pdas with detachable scan head, so converted an application originally made for Windows Mobile (which has been running perfectly for several years) to run on the WT4090s. The devices use these versions:
Windows CE 5.0
EMDK 2.6
ASP.net CF 2.0
Since rollout I've seen some very frustrating behaviour, which seems to start happening after the devices have been operating a few days. Users are reporting the following error:
Unexpected error in application
SCAN_Enable
There doesnt seem to be any noticeable pattern, several devices will be working perfectly for a few days then suddenly this error will show. THen a few days and a few reboots later they work again.
All devices were taken right back to stock settings then our cabs deployed to them. All identical models. We've tried altering memory allocation, swapping scanner headers etc but there is no pattern.
The error seems to occur on load of the first form after login, the login screen displays a list of users in a dropdown with a password box so that part of the app works ok, it seems to be when the scanner is initialised that this failure happens.
I had 40 devices, now 30+ have gone down with this same issue so my gut is telling me its a software issue but as yet ive not been able to find out why.
We've tried warm boots, cold boots, complete reprovisionings as well. We have a couple of dev units that don't show the problem although they are not in regular use so maybe we just haven't seen the problem 'yet'.
I hope someone out there has had this issue and knows how to fix it.
Thanks in advance.
WT4090 was built by Motorola Solution enterprise business, now part of Zebra Technologies. The WT4090 is currently in EOS (End Of Sales) but is still supported by Zebra if you've a maintenance contract.
You can check if you've the latest OS version and fixes installed on the device looking on Zebra Technologies support website.
For question on how to develop for Zebra Technologies devices you can take a look at Launchpad, Zebra's developer community website.
It's Worth noting that these devices have detachable barcode scanners - so if the scanner is not correctly attached, you get a SCAN_Enable error.
If you don't release the scanner, you can also see this error as a previous form could have the scanner blocked.
You may also find you have the ScanWedge app running - this will also block the scanner so you cannot get it enabled. The EMDK needs exclusive access to the scanner to enable it.

Can we access WebGL through Virtual machine

AFAIK, WebGL require graphics card and VM doesn't have one. So is there any way we can open a webpage having 3D content using Virtual machine.
I want a virtual machine with a Chrome browser and want to use that VM to see WebGL samples, as I don't have direct internet access in my workstation.
Hope I phrased my question correctly.
Chrome will run with software based OSMesa. Unfortunately you'd have to build OSMesa for your OS then run Chrome with --use-gl=osmesa. The Chromium source has a target for OSMesa which is/was used to be able to run various tests on VMs in the cloud.

Screen capture on Linux

I need to port a screen capture utility to Linux.
I'm not familiar with Linux. On Windows, you can get the handle of a specific window or desktop and using BitBlt in Win32 API, you can copy the image and save it to a BMP file or even convert it to Jpeg format.
On Linux, as far as I know there are different desktop environments like KDE. Which should I target for development? Or which distribution? And also, which development environment do you suggest? I do programming in C/C++.
Using Xlib to talk to the X server works the same way regardless of your desktop environment. Retrieve a list of windows from the server, work out which one you want and hence its position and size, and use XGetImage to retrieve the image data.
IDEs are a matter of taste; there are many suggestions here.

What are the pros and cons of using a Mac for web development? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been using Fedora Linux for quite some time now for web development (and for other dev stuff as well). But just recently, someone told me that since I'm doing web development, I might as well use a Mac. I feel like Macs are overrated. Why should I (or should I not) use a Mac?
Ok, here is my 2 cents.
I am a PC guy, have been for years.
I purchased a MAC about 3 years ago, and installed the Macromedia Tools (Dreamwaver, etc).
Despite my best attempts, I just could not be productive -- I was just so used to the way things worked in Windows, the MAC OS (while very nice) felt counter-productive to me.
So, I am back to the PC (have been for years).
My point is, whatever OS you are USED to is the one you will be the most productive on, with the only exception being if there is a particular APP that is only available on another OS.
So, I would stick with what you know (apparently, LINUX), or be prepared to lose some productivity for a while.
I have been doing web development on Linux for years. Despite owning a Mac, I have never once needed to use it for web development.
VIM, Apache, MySQL, Inkscape, Gimp, GEdit, Firefox+addons
That is all I need.
I will test in IE and Safari and others, but that is testing, not development.
unless you can think of a reason, why should you?
I can think of one good reason, there's an OSX software called CSSEdit which could be the best CSS editor I ever used. It supports something similar to #region found in VS and also have a good hierarchy view on rules and classes.
I really enjoy using my MacBook Pro for all kinds of development, not just web development, but not for any of the reasons anyone has mentioned. Sure it has nice Unix underpinnings, and is very pretty to look at. The main reason I use the Mac and OS X for development is how well and consistently it works. The keyboard shortcuts are consistent across all applications, and the keyboard is laid out in a way that makes it very natural to use the operating system's commands. For me, it's much easier and faster to use the Mac Keyboard in conjunction with OS X for development, even on a laptop, than it is to use a mouse/keyboard on a desktop. I also don't have to worry about drivers or programs working, like I do with Linux (e.g. Adobe Flex).
I've been using Mac for web development for the past year and have recently moved over to Ubuntu Linux and am having a much better time.
Here's why:
Integrated package management: while macs have macports, this isn't integrated across the whole OS. With ubuntu I can type in a couple of commands (or use a GUI if I were so inclined) and have LAMP up and running in about 3 minutes flat. This is without the user of any shrink-wrapped 'LAMP Installations' like XAMMP or MAMP or EasyPHP, just the raw software itself. This becomes a lot more important when you start using tools like pear, phpunit, rubygems etc which are much less hassle to configure and get working on ubuntu than they were on the Mac.
Nice Terminal: Relevant only to Unix based developers I guess, but it has a nice multi-tabbed terminal (iterm on mac has this, but it became face-achingly slow for some reason) that expands to a complete fullscreen.
UPDATE: I'm still on Tiger. Leopard, admittedly has a pretty good terminal.
Easy Virtualization: Again, Mac may have options for this but I probably gave up trying to install them. I'm currently using wine and virtualbox for virtualizing windows and testing IE for web dev projects.
Nice Open Source Alternatives To Graphics Software: I don't like stealing software, and I can't afford photoshop etc. GIMP and Inkscape are good enough for me. Again these are available on the Mac, but the X windowing system that GIMP uses doesn't work so well on OSX. Flawless in ubuntu however.
Overall I'm just way more productive on a linux machine. This could be because I like things at the terminal rather than with GUI's, but the big win for me is definitely the ease of installing new programmer-relevant software with apt-get.
I personally don't think there are any cons (unlike when I have to develop on windows box GRRRRRR!). The pros are as follows
Test in any browser on on any platform
Apache built in (But I recommend MAMP)
Great native developer tools (Coda BBEdit et al)
A major con is the lack of Internet explorer. That being said, I have Internet Explorer 6 installed Via Wine, so I can use it like any other Mac program (in X11).
It also probably takes more work to get ASP setup on a mac, like installing mono, but even that is easy enough.
There is a lot of great web software that I LOVE on the mac, such as Coda, Transmit, CSSEdit and TextMate.
I'm a PHP programmer, and having developed on a Mac for 2 years, I've come to the conclusion I would rather be using anything else.
Since the original question was in regards to using a Mac instead of Linux for web development, that's how I've rephrased my pros & cons.
Pros of Mac over Linux:
Fully supported by commercial grade products (Adobe, for example).
Cons of Mac over Linux:
Larger than normal buy-in cost for a complete system.
Closed system - no hardware upgrades except maybe HDD & RAM.
Edit: In regards to the comments I've received, I've re-evaluated my response to be more in line with the original question.
It really doesn't matter when coming to the Web. Adobe's products are considered some of the best in the industry - such as Flash and Photoshop. You can easily get these on Windows too.
I think that web development is one of the things Linux is very good at, because you can easily setup all the standard server side components. On a mac you can do that too but MacPorts and Fink just don't are the same quality and so updated as Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
One point for the Mac may be the availability of good commercial development products.
For web development it really doesn't matter what kind of operating system you are using. Even though I am using a Mac, web developers using Windows may have the advantage of running Internet Explorer native while the rest has to use virtual machines for that. But again, it doesn't really matter then.
The only pro-point I can think of is that 90% of the design folks are using Macs, so you would be able to keep up with the coolness-factor many of them are trying to pull-off.
Well if I remember correctly, you can't really do flash developmenton Linux. Plus, as much as people praise the merits of GIMP, I don't think it's quite on par with Photoshop / Illustrator in term of ease of use (heck there is a part in the FAQ that explain you how to draw a circle).
I tend to prefer Windows for whatever developpement though as I really like Visual Studio.
It's my impression that a lot of Ruby on Rails and other relatively new and cool languages have good support on the Mac. I often read about Silicon Valley hipsters (there's that word again) being Mac-centric.
Also, obviously, if you ever intend to get into iPhone development, you'd be all set.
CSSEdit + Adobe Dreamweaver + TextMate + Transmit FTP + Firefox with FireBug and FirePHP and you good to go on MAC ;)
I moved to MAC 2 years ago, no regrets.
It's certainly handy to have a Mac around, if nothing else to check for Safari compatibility, but most of the better tools I've encountered are pretty much platform independent (outside of the .Net world anyway, and even they have Mono).
All of the following are available on all the major platforms
Firefox/firebug for browser debugging (on Mac, Windows and Linux)
Eclipse or Netbeans for IDE (ditto)
Tomcat
Xampp is available on all major platforms in slightly different flavours and gives you most of the tools you'd need for a whole class of development.
The only reason I can see to tie yourself to a particular platform If you have a particular niche you need to target and the application only runs on that one platform. But as this is web development you're talking about you may well find yourself excluding most of the world.
After juggling with various environments. I finally have the following configuration.
Use Windows for Visual Studio Team System development.
Use WinSCP, Notepad++ on Windows to connect to a Linux machine via sFTP and develop PHP
Use terminal on MAC for mysql development. Sometimes I use putty on Windows as well.
Use MAC for Flash CS4 and Flex development.
Overall, in my context, I found Windows to be much stronger platform than MAC for web development.
Really, the issue is that Apple sells hardware and a user experience. With the Mac you would be able to bring the computer to any local apple store for rapid repair and tech support. They wrap the open-source BSD like Darwin OS with a convenient GUI that they control to present a unified experience. So it's just as powerful as you are used to an OS being but has amazing convenience for both software and hardware.
As others mentioned you can run IE with wine, so there's nothing you can't do on it for web development, plus there are great mac only webdev apps (read the other posts).
e.g. I develop on my mac using the full power of *nix (the differences are negligible, like if you need to use RC for anything and don't want to mess with OSX's launched). If anything goes wrong with the hardware I go to the local mall, they fix it asap, and I'm back to programming.
Do you really want to buy your Dell and mess with installing whatever OS then when it breaks talking with some guy in India before they'll let you ship it to Kazmandu for fixes?
Why not give it a try?
While developing any commercial web based application it is important to give "Look n Feel" and "Usability" its due importance. DUring development phase the application looks and works excellent on MAC but when run on Windows, it starts to show problems.
Considering the large number of target audience who use Windows or Linux, I feel that development of Web Applications is better done on Windows or Linux.
Pros: TextMate & CSSedit
Cons:
here is what I see that are good on Mac's for web dev
CSSEdit (only for Mac) - this package makes CSS editing so much easier. The X-ray function is a must have. Firebug has somewhat similar capability and free, but it's just not as well implemented as CSSEdit, and I searched for Windows equivalent and found none.
Probably better support with Adobe software than Linux :p
Coda or Espresso (only for Mac) are two other web developing suit I personally think are much better then Dreamweaver.
System is fairly hassle free. Less time dealing with system. More time for coding, or whatever it is that you want to do.
Exposé windows management is a great time saver too
Time machine back up is another gem. Easy to setup, and saved my butt quite a few times.
Colors system on Macs are better than Windows as far as I know
Parallels Desktop or VMWare are fast enough to debug IE, so no reboot or a separate computer necessary. (Sorry, not sure what the Fedora situation is though)
OS interface is much better than windows (again, no Fedora experience here). It takes about 2 weeks to get used to (from several friends experience). After that, there is usually no turning back.
There are cons of course, but right now I can only think of one:
Notebook's screen sucks… all TN panels. They are maybe good enough for average users, but for any color critical work, it's just no up to the snuff, so if you get a notebook, you wanna get a decent external monitor.
The Mac doesn't really have an edge over Linux for Web Development. If your comfortable and productive on Linux don't bother switching.
However, If the thought of having Unix with a pretty face and well thought out GUI appeals to you then the Mac is an excellent choice. I have one for development at work and use Linux at home for personal projects. For development work there isn't much difference. The difference is in all the non-development stuff.
For instance I absolutely love Quicksilver on the Mac. It's a wonderful interface to most of what I do. I almost never use it when doing code though. It comes in handy when I launch music or open a web page or play a video or any one of a hundred other things I do on that machine. The polish is nice but when it comes time to get serious I just pull up a shell and get just as productive as I am on Linux.
I cannot speak for myself, as I don't own a Mac (or have consistently worked on one), but I work in an environment full of Macs. And I can tell you, most of them are mac users that happen to be web developers as well. They are productive because they take advantage of whatever the features a Mac offers them, and can control their environment. This applies to all operating systems, but the switch involves a learning curve that you must be willing to accept.
You should also consider compatibility, when working on a team. We usually don't have any problems setting up the application environment or working consistently with the code between different OS. But if you need to do image edition stuff, work with very Mac specific tools or need specific software (IE comes to mind), you may be tied to the OS.
The short answer: it depends on how much effort do you require for adapting. The user experience in Mac seems to be the killer feature over deciding. Other than that, they are pretty much the same in term of productiveness, except maybe for the software some people has pointed out already.

Will I be able to successfully run this Ubuntu (linux) setup in Virtualbox?

Have 4 DVI output. Seems I hopefully will have driver support on this. Details are sketchy online about supporting 4 outputs, but seems possible.
My question is from the Linux group and Virtualbox pros.... Will the seamless method of VirtualBox allow me to use all 3 of my monitors for multiscreen. I'd like to stick with Ubuntu and run Visual C# and other tools from my VirtualBox. Compiz effects are just too amazing to want Aero Glass.
What do you think, will my system be able to use the multiple monitors with VirtualBox and this graphics card? I've googled for hours and am still searching for answers.
Edit:
I tried virtualbox last night. Pretty slick, though I had an error in installing Visual C#NET. However, it wouldn't let you drag between multiple screens??? Is this something the host must resolve, or does the guest session need to have special settings for multiple monitors? Haven't been able to find anything in google supporting multiple monitors with virtualbox.
You should be able to configure your screens just fine. Don't know the exact details for an ATI setup, but you should be able to use Xinerama to create a single large virtual desktop, and then just run VirtualBox (though honestly, I prefer KVM, which runs on modern CPUs which provide native virtualization support) full-screen on one of those monitors. You would then be able to have three screens dedicated to Ubuntu, and the forth dedicated to Windows.
You might want to look into the non-Xinerama method of multiple displays. Each display is then treated as its own screen (so you'd have :0.0, :0.1, :0.2, and :0.3 for your X displays). You cannot move applications between the screens, but you get four independent desktops. I personally find that more useful than the idea of a single stretched desktop over multiple displays; when I used a laptop as my primary system, that's what I did, and when I get a second monitor for my computer, I'll likely return to that means of doing things. You'll have to investigate the specifics for such a setup with ATI, but the X server supports it, so it's just a matter of looking at your ATI driver's documentation to put the pieces together.

Resources