On 11/24/2009 02:05 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
> Hartmut Figge schrieb:
>> NoOp:
>>
>>> If I "Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch" and "start 1.1 with
>>> a -no-remote switch" I will only get another 2.0 window.
>>
>> Well, on Linux i will get SM1 then. *g*
> And that's the point. NoOp, you
Hartmut Figge schrieb:
NoOp:
If I "Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch" and "start 1.1 with
a -no-remote switch" I will only get another 2.0 window.
Well, on Linux i will get SM1 then. *g*
And that's the point. NoOp, you're using Linux it seems and Mark Hansen
is using windows. On W
NoOp:
>If I "Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch" and "start 1.1 with
>a -no-remote switch" I will only get another 2.0 window.
Well, on Linux i will get SM1 then. *g*
Hartmut
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.
On 11/23/2009 05:23 PM, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 4:06 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> On 11/23/2009 02:42 PM, Mark Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2009 1:34 PM, NoOp wrote:
On 11/23/2009 12:24 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
> So here is a way to test:
>
> 1. Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote
On 11/23/2009 4:06 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 02:42 PM, Mark Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/23/2009 1:34 PM, NoOp wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2009 12:24 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
So here is a way to test:
1. Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch.
2. While 2.0 is running start 1.
On 11/23/2009 02:42 PM, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 1:34 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> On 11/23/2009 12:24 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
>>> So here is a way to test:
>>>
>>> 1. Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch.
>>>
>>> 2. While 2.0 is running start 1.1 with a -no-remote switch. Does 1.1
>>> ope
On 11/23/2009 1:34 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 12:24 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
>> So here is a way to test:
>>
>> 1. Start SM 2.0 /without/ the -no-remote switch.
>>
>> 2. While 2.0 is running start 1.1 with a -no-remote switch. Does 1.1
>> open or just another 2.0 window?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
> O
On 11/23/2009 12:24 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:28:29 -0800, NoOp wrote:
>> On 11/22/2009 01:25 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Actually, you might want to check again... '-no-noremote' works just
>>> fine for me on Win2KPro in both 1.1.18 & 2.0. That is how I test both in
>>> W
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:28:29 -0800, NoOp wrote:
> On 11/22/2009 01:25 PM, NoOp wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Actually, you might want to check again... '-no-noremote' works just
>> fine for me on Win2KPro in both 1.1.18 & 2.0. That is how I test both in
>> Windows via a VM (VirtualBox) at the same time so th
On 11/22/2009 01:25 PM, NoOp wrote:
...
>
> Actually, you might want to check again... '-no-noremote' works just
> fine for me on Win2KPro in both 1.1.18 & 2.0. That is how I test both in
> Windows via a VM (VirtualBox) at the same time so that I can easily compare.
Sorry: should be '-no-remote'
On 11/21/2009 08:56 AM, Philip Chee wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:54 +0100, Hartmut Figge wrote:
>> D. K. Kraft:
>>
>>>Harmut, does one need the -no-remote parameter on both the 1.1.18 and the 2.0
>>>shortcuts? Or does it suffice just to have it on the 2.0 shortcut?
>>
>> I haven't tested t
Philip Chee wrote:
Actually the only reason that 1.1 on linux supports -no-remote is that
on linux "seamonkey" is a shell script that translates -no-remote into
set MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
seamonkey-bin etc.
Well, "supports" suggests it checks for exactly that option. The truth
is that -anyoptionthati
With patience akin to a cat's, Philip Chee, on 11/21/2009 8:56 AM typed:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:54 +0100, Hartmut Figge wrote:
D. K. Kraft:
Harmut, does one need the -no-remote parameter on both the 1.1.18 and the 2.0
shortcuts? Or does it suffice just to have it on the 2.0 shortcut?
I ha
Philip Chee:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:54 +0100, Hartmut Figge wrote:
>> And the new version of Karsten should be ready soon. :)
>
>So aliens have kidnapped Karsten and are preparing a doppelgänger to
>infiltrate the highest echelons of the SeaMonkey Council?
:-P
Hartmut
___
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:54 +0100, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> D. K. Kraft:
>
>>Harmut, does one need the -no-remote parameter on both the 1.1.18 and the 2.0
>>shortcuts? Or does it suffice just to have it on the 2.0 shortcut?
>
> I haven't tested this. When i need SM1 while running SM2 i start SM1
D. K. Kraft:
>Harmut, does one need the -no-remote parameter on both the 1.1.18 and the 2.0
>shortcuts? Or does it suffice just to have it on the 2.0 shortcut?
I haven't tested this. When i need SM1 while running SM2 i start SM1
with -no-remote. Or when i need SM2 while running SM1 i start SM2 w
With patience akin to a cat's, Hartmut Figge, on 11/19/2009 9:53 PM typed:
David E. Ross:
One warning: You cannot have both SM 1.1.18 and SM 2.0 running at the
same time. Once one of them is running, attempting to launch the other
will merely launch a new window of the one that is already run
RGrannus wrote:
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatt
RGrannus wrote:
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in forma
On 11/20/2009 3:59 PM, RGrannus wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>> OldCroc wrote:
>>> The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
>>> important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
>>> Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
>>>
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain fo
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain fo
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain fo
Leonidas Jones wrote:
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain fo
On 11/19/2009 8:25 PM PT, David E. Ross typed:
One warning: You cannot have both SM 1.1.18 and SM 2.0 running at the
same time. Once one of them is running, attempting to launch the other
will merely launch a new window of the one that is already running.
Wow. Isn't that a bug? I sometimes d
David E. Ross:
>One warning: You cannot have both SM 1.1.18 and SM 2.0 running at the
>same time. Once one of them is running, attempting to launch the other
>will merely launch a new window of the one that is already running.
While running SM2 i sometimes launch SM1 with the parameter -no-remo
On 11/19/2009 5:21 PM, OldCroc wrote:
> The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
> important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
> Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
> by me. There are some errors in formatting in cert
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain folders that I
do not wan
OldCroc wrote:
The Subject line says it all, except I would like to add that this is
important to me, as I do not want what is on my Version either
Destroyed or imported into Version 2.0, except by manually being done
by me. There are some errors in formatting in certain folders that I
do not wan
29 matches
Mail list logo
