Geoff wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 08:51:11 +0000, JTK wrote: > > > Patrick Gallagher wrote: > >> > >> I've never had any problems at all with the cache - Moz has been > >> showing me the correct versions of pages ever day for 2 years or so - > >> with the exception of a few builds that wouldn't run properly or at > >> all. Perhaps your ISP corrected some sort of error in their proxy > >> server? > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > > Well again, that would have affected IE and NC4.7x. They worked 100% > > fine, as they always have, throughout this period. But what about the > > other folks that have been seeing this - is it fixed for you guys too > > now? > > Much as I hate to provide you with ammunition JTK (more about that below),
"Ammunition"? In order to "fight" who or what exactly? And why do you "hate" to assist in that "fight"? > here is an experience I had yesterday. This is 0.9.7 which I compiled > under linux 2.4.16 (now running 2.4.17), on 29th December without mail or > news support. The cache settings are the defaults (8192kb memory, 50,000 > kb disk, comparing once per session). > > About 10 am yesterday morning I went to www.jungle.co.uk (which redirects > to jungle.com). I had been there before under this version of Moz. They > sell computers etc. I got a simple page saying that their system was > under maintenance and should be back by 8am (which it plainly wasn't). I > checked back several times during the day, including after a > shutdowm/reboot, but I always saw that page. > > About 10pm I tried under Opera and Galeon - both showed the site up and > running. Moz still showed the same "system under maintenance" page. I > deleted the memory cache (which I did not expect to work, but I was being > methodical) - same page seen after that. I deleted the disk cache, and > Moz then displayed the page correctly. > Ouch, ok, so not only is the cache broke, it's broke on Linux too. Thanks for the further info. > Like I said, JTK, I hate to provide you with ammunition, Yep, and I'd still like an explanation as to what exactly you mean by that. > but I think that > the people on this list are interested in the truth and might be > interested in my experience. Exactly. And why do you think I posted my experience? So LaGgy could call me names? > For the record, I don't flip burgers and. as > best I can recall, I last ate one in the early 1970's. Ok... what's that have to do with anything? > I am way too old > to be anyone's d00d. As am I. We seem to be in the extreme minority here. > I don't like M$ (an abbreviation I picked up on > other lists), And you do realize how silly and juvenile that is, right? Not to mention just plain unimaginative. Well, I take that back a bit; it *was* funny the first hundred-thousand times I read it. Now it's merely tiresome. > but my dislike has nothing to do with the fact that they > make profits - I am a capitalist, or that they are American - the US does > not have a better friend overseas than me. Then what does your dislike stem from? Simple herd mentality? The "I hate the king of the hill" effect? You neglect to mention that. Five'll get you ten *I* dislike Microsoft a hell of a lot more than you do. And not because I saw somebody write "M$" in a post once. I have to deal with the innermost guts of their products on a daily basis, and it's a horror you do not want to experience. It would not have to be that way if Microsoft spent 10% more effort on stuff that mattered (oh like, say, documentation) and 10% less time on fading menus and other useless crap. Or if somebody wanted to compete with them. Like Mozilla for instance. A web browser and email/newsreader is nowhere near the "innermost guts" of which I speak above. It's a lead-pipe cinch to get a context menu to pop up. Or to get the times right in a cache. But year after year goes by, and these things just don't happen, do they? Don't tell me you don't see it yourself. But I suppose "M$" is somehow preventing Mozilla's cache from working properly on Linux. No, they aren't, are they? The fault there lies squarely in AOL's lap, as does the failure of the entire Mozilla project. > I do not, however, post > venomous messages on M$ lists, But you somehow expect things to magically change? The non-squeaking wheel gets no grease friend. > and I can't imagine why you do so here. Well it's pretty much all contained in the three or four paragraphs directly above, but I suspect that neither you nor anybody else here will allow themselves to stop trying to imagine and actually see what was before them the whole time. > Anyway, I guess that's your privilege. > Actually it's my right. That's what the Constitution says anyway. Not that anybody reads its dusty old pages anymore. > Regards, > > Geoff
