> Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true. You are denying the evident. You have mentioned yourself that a lot of time was invested to support IE. Since the majority of pages supported IE, it just confirms what I'm saying: people try to stick to the standard of IE. In a few cases even crashes and freezes of IE had to be worked around, making those crashes and freezes, well, a standard.
The input and testing that you did are great anyway, I appreciate that. > I'm pretty sure that Safari and Firefox don't share Code that is > relevant for this (network-specific) problem. Maybe they share > spidermonkey-code, but that is just for JavaScript and has nothing to do > with the issue. lynx is the only browser which ignores JavaScript, so JavaScript handling might be (theoretically, just a guess) one component of the issue. > I'm also quite sure that Opera and Firefox don't share any code. > You can try to verify that on your box with wireshark, but I guess it'll > look the same and send no cookie, so the page is loaded without problems. > How do you connect to the internet with affected boxes? DSL, UMTS, ...? > Directly or with a router? What kind of router? etc. Currently affected network: Wireless->(unknown)->Spanish telecom. I have very limited access to the (unknown), but I'll try to provide more information. I can help with investigation of wireshark on debian from late July 2010 if you say exactly what to type in. At this very moment unfortunately no debian, only OS X, sorry. It seems to me that it is just hard for most programmers to correctly (with respect to the standards of Cisco & MS, in case there is a difference to RFCs) implement some algorithm, which makes the implementation fail in particular networks. Regards Sasha. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
