display a page with a lot of TABLE
hello, I have a problem with a page which is very long to display. This contains a lot of TABLE. 20 or 30 Is it normal ? Is it a knowed bug ? I would like to know from how many TABLE it's a bug... thank you Loic
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
At 18:47 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder" casual, I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that you're suggesting all inclusive security. I think that it is the illusion of security that is the problem. accidental peeping into ones e-mail. This is similar to password protecting an excel file or wordperfect document. Simple. And non-effective. If you use a password to gain access to your email using Mozilla how does this stop searches for text in all files by anyone? It is entirely non-functional except when running Mozilla. Now you can say, 'Oh but that's good enough' and it may well be for you. But for the currently 2 million other users, rising to a billion, will it be? Or will the extremely public knowledge of 'Oh you can password protect things in Mozilla, but you can just read the files normally anyway. Hey if you want to search all the email on your machine just hit F3.', damage the reputation of the product as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas? It is this latter view that concerns people. The utility of protecting files from different users isn't doubted, this just isn't the way to do it. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwant this feature!
OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in Win9x, would: a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory? b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons logging in under another Win9x profile? If either answer is NO, then Mozilla should consider implementing a profile password to add even a minor layer of security to ones mail privacy, since if Win9x doesn't encrypt or hide users' info from others, most people wouldn't bother to use it. If either answer is NO, then why are so many people using Win9x.? According to your logic, this would "damage the reputation of the product (Win9x) as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas"? Then why are so many people using Win9x? Despite why you or I may think about M$ and it's flawed OS, this is the reality. Obviously, people are making their usage habits (Win9x IE) based primarily on convenience and not technically optimized criteria (or most people would be using Win NT or Linux for security, but they mostly use Win9x - makes one think, doesn't it). Mozilla must think very hard when deciding between what users want and what is technically optimal. Mozilla must make this important compromise. "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: At 18:47 18/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: you guys just don't get it. Nobody is asking for some all inclusive security system. What is merely requested is a simple and convenient way to "hinder" casual, I don't think anyone is under the misapprehension that you're suggesting all inclusive security. I think that it is the illusion of security that is the problem. accidental peeping into ones e-mail. This is similar to password protecting an excel file or wordperfect document. Simple. And non-effective. If you use a password to gain access to your email using Mozilla how does this stop searches for text in all files by anyone? It is entirely non-functional except when running Mozilla. Now you can say, 'Oh but that's good enough' and it may well be for you. But for the currently 2 million other users, rising to a billion, will it be? Or will the extremely public knowledge of 'Oh you can password protect things in Mozilla, but you can just read the files normally anyway. Hey if you want to search all the email on your machine just hit F3.', damage the reputation of the product as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas? It is this latter view that concerns people. The utility of protecting files from different users isn't doubted, this just isn't the way to do it. Simon -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! You knowyouwant this feature!
At 13:44 18/12/2000 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote: "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99% of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant. Hmm. Its not best possible cost because it fixes the wrong problem. Providing a non-functional passwording system on a more secure operating system would simply irritate the users of those systems. Hmm. I do see your point, but on the other hand, we have *already* irritated such people more than enough by providing the non-functional "profile" system in the first place on systems (*nix and to a lesser extent Win2k) that already have much more sophisticated ways to deal with multiple users. In that situation, support for multiple mail accounts removed the only possible reason anyone might have wanted profiles on *nix... we have them anyway. And yes, as a user of such a system, I *do* find it irritating (although, I have to admit, Moz does a good job of making the unnecessary profiles functionality invisible and unobtrusive). Clearly, not irritating users of "real" operating systems wasn't a high design priority :) This feature can be implemented with a *reduction* in irritation to everyone, by turning profiles off altogether for sufficiently advanced OSs. Agreed that there is a lot of grief associated with profiles and perhaps they are better off not existing at the moment. However, some mechanism of differentiating one mode of use or the defaults for a particular user is still going to be needed, let alone persistence attributes. So, you might have a slimmed down 'profile' but you'll still need the same information. There are all sorts of mechanisms that allow that on both secure and non secure operating systems. A screen saver with a password is only one. Leaving a machine on without some kind of control would just avoid any security anyway. It would take a lot longer to open a browser and enter a password for the profile than it would to enter a password on a screen saver or keyboard lock. Up until recently, I lived in a home with children and a single family computer. I also know several people who do so. In all these situations that I know of, I am the only person who would have the first clue where to look for profile data if I wanted to break this "security". The others range from "uh, what's a file?" to fully capable of figuring out and using most applications, and even doing simple HTML authoring. For the large proportion of households that don't contain an advanced computer user or script kiddie (I don't consider script kiddies advanced :) ) the mere existence of a password would be more than enough protection. We're talking about the "sister doesn't want annoying younger brother reading her email to her girlfriends about boys" kind of security. The sort of security provided by those journals that come with locks that I could pull apart with my bare hands if I really wanted to. The sort of security that is *all most home users really need*. Advanced users, of course, know that this security is inadequate for them. But advanced users also know how to get better security, so it doesn't *matter*. All that would be fine if the password achieved anything outside of Mozilla, but it doesn't. No one needs to know where the profile data is, it can be found accidentally or otherwise just by pressing F3 and indicating the entire machine to search. There are then two alternatives, not worry about very insecure operating systems, or bring all of the data into the application domain. No clear text files. I don't have a particular problem with the latter until someone complains that they can't read their own data any more because of a bug. You can, of course, apply PGPDisk so that it is encrypted outside of the application but I think that's a solution too sophisticated for the people who need the protection. Simon
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwant this feature!
At 09:58 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in Win9x, would: a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory? It should do, if it doesn't that's a bug. b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons logging in under another Win9x profile? Check http://msdn.microsoft.com/training/options/FREE/VBSOL/Topics/winvbvc00198.htm this says that My Documents should be used to store User created data. As its a virtual path set up at the time of login then it is certainly true that only the logged in user would see their own data in My Documents. However, I'm not aware of anything in 9x or Me that implements permissions to lock out other profiles from being physically searched. This is slightly better than just using a password in Mozilla, but suffers the same drawback. If either answer is NO, then Mozilla should consider implementing a profile password to add even a minor layer of security to ones mail privacy, since if Win9x doesn't encrypt or hide users' info from others, most people wouldn't bother to use it. If either answer is NO, then why are so many people using Win9x.? According to your logic, this would "damage the reputation of the product (Win9x) as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas"? Then why are so many people using Win9x? Despite why you or I may think about M$ and it's flawed OS, this is the reality. Obviously, people are making their usage habits (Win9x IE) based primarily on convenience and not technically optimized criteria (or most people would be using Win NT or Linux for security, but they mostly use Win9x - makes one think, doesn't it). Mozilla must think very hard when deciding between what users want and what is technically optimal. Mozilla must make this important compromise. I'd imagine that many people given the choice would want a more secure operating system than 9x or Me, most people don't get the choice though. Their operating system is bundled with their hardware, and if not the home user is generally told that 9x is their ideal operating system and that Win 2K etc is a corporate user's operating system. That this is now generally false is a pity but there's not a lot can be done about that until MS produce their unified OS, and even then they will have a smaller Home User O/S still dependant on DOS, because their marketeers believe anything else would be too difficult. This isn't to inculcate any OS platform war, I really couldn't care less what platform is used. Simon
$B!z!z!z!z!!%/%m!<%i%/%i%VH/?J!*!*(B$B!!!z!z!z!z(B
$BFMA3$N%a!<%k$G<:Ni$$$?$7$^$9!#$3$N%a!<%k$O!"%5%$%I%S%8%M%9$dI{6H$K(B
Open VM
Hi Mozilla-Team! Is it possible, that you create a project, which creates a non-Java-like free Virtual-Machine? I think that the Operating Systems itself are in the future more and more unimportant. The desktop is the important thing. Look at your Mozilla and OpenOffice: Both creating programs for the different Operating Systems. But, there existing a lot of #ifdef 's in it. And the compiled programs are platform- and hardware-dependent! And all your Mozilla-code must been new compiled for all Operating Systems. Microsoft have recognized it, and have started theire .NET-strategy. There is a VM (Virtual Machine), which makes the software hardware-independent (and if the VM is ported to other systems, it is platform-independent, too). Microsofts VM, is like the JavaVM, but with a lot of extensions. So, it is possible, to create C and C++-compiler for this VM. And Microsofts VM is faster, then the JavaVM. A related project, which have a Unix-like API is called ICVM (http://www.xmission.com/~icvm/). But Microsofts VM and the ICVM are both _not_ OpenSource. The ICVM-programmer say on there homepage, that theire VM is it, but thats not true. The source-code, which they have published is very shrouded. But the advantage of ICVM is, that it is very fast. Test the 3D-shooter-game DOOM, which they have ported to ICVM. All programs, which run on theire VM, runs so fast like native-code! I think, that we need something like this. We need a free VM (best, if its under the GPL and/or LGPL). I think, that VMs are in the future more and more important. And if the OpenSource-community don't have an own VM, we are dependent on proprietary-solutions, too. We have OpenSource Operating-Systems like Linux, HURD, FreeDOS, AtheOS (http://www.atheos.cx), and anything else. But if in the future, the most programs are written for VMs, and the OpenSource-community have no VM, than we have the same problem, like in Microsoft best days: To run the programs we need a fundamental program (program, on which other programs are based), which is proprietary. But I think, that _all_ fundamental programs must been free. So, we need a free and open VM. Patrick
Re: Password Protected Profiles - VOTE HERE !!! Youknowyouwantthis feature!
At 14:01 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:12 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote: "Simon P. Lucy" wrote: This is slightly better than just using a password in Mozilla, but suffers the same drawback. My point EXACTLY (the SAME drawback). Actually Mozilla is worse, because in Win9x the user doesn't "see" the other's My Documents folder, whereas in Mozilla, you see the list of other users' profiles EVERY time you load Mozilla (Profile Manager) Well I wouldn't leap about too much, why is seeing the existence of other profiles a Good or a Bad thing? Its also not clear to me that Users == Profiles I can see a variety of circumstances where an individual user would want different profiles simultaneously. Remember, the isse is the "casual" user. These represent the VAST majority of users. Seeing others' profiles is an invitation to snoop. Then I'm really confused. How is having a password which doesn't stop access improve things then? And don't know that the vast majority of users will share their machines with other people, somehow I doubt it. I think you are clutching at straws. Well, I think you are being deliberately stubborn :-) Nope, nohow, stubbornness is just natural. I'd imagine that many people given the choice would want a more secure operating system than 9x or Me, most people don't get the choice though. Their operating system is bundled with their hardware, and if not the home user is generally told that 9x is their ideal operating system and that Win 2K etc is a corporate user's operating system. That this is now generally false is a pity but there's not a lot can be done about that until MS produce their unified OS, and even then they will have a smaller Home User O/S still dependant on DOS, because their marketeers believe anything else would be too difficult. Don't waver now. The fact remains that most people use Win9x! I buy my own components and assemble them. I still choose Win9x because it is A) much cheaper than WinNT, B) compatible with more software, C) easier to use/configure, D) supports games, etc etc But have you done any of those things in Win2K? If security is important to you use an operating system that provides it, it it isn't either live with the consequences or fix it generally. You can't expect an application to fix file system security. Are you deliberately not responding to what I said. My first point (A) was price. Win2k is much more expensive. Also, the "level of security" is a main issue if my arguments, so I don't need (or want) to use Win2k. Not at all, it isn't 'much more expensive' its around $100 more than from 98/Me, if security is important to someone then the perceived price drops. If security isn't important then I don't understand why you care. Since you obviously do care you must want something else and that something else is I think your pet solution and no other. I'm sure most people make a conscious choice to use Win9x for those or similar reasons. This is the reality. Mozilla should accept it (and the resulting consequences) and implement password protected profiles. Oh bollocks :-) People make no choice at all for the most part in which operating system they use. There's only one cross platform solution and that is to optionally encrypt profile data including email. There will be a performance penalty. Adding passwords to profiles in Mozilla doesn't increase the security of those profiles one iota unless those files themselves are secured by that password. Again, yoour missing the point. Nobody ever mentioned anything about encrypting profile data, that would be nice, but not needed by the "casual" user. Also the prformance hit (encryption) should be optional (if implemented). I hope they do add optional encryption, because that increases the odds that I will be able to turn encryption OFF, while keeping profile password enabled ;-) Lots of people have mentioned encrypting the profile files. As I don't think you will get profile passwords implemented in anything its a moot point as to whether you can enable them or not. Simon
Mac nightlies: profile issues?
I didn't see this in known issues for 0.6, but perhaps someone could enlighten me... For a few days now, I've been downloading the newest nightlies onto my iBook. It installs fine, however, everytime I try to run it, it asks me to confirm profile migration. This occurs regardless of whether I import profile, create a profile anew, etc. It's as if Mozilla isn't finding the settings -- even though there is a "defaults" folder there. Any ideas/suggestions? TIA, Corey. -- -- corey at dub dot net
help with small hack
Can someone point to me in the right direction with a small hack ? I'd like to implement a feature that cURL has where a form field references data in file, by prefixing the file name in the text box with @. -Rob
configuration
My smtp server need authenticating to non-local recipient. How configure this in mozilla? Thanks
Re: Why does N6 open 2 seperate Windows When A E-Mail Link Is Clicked?
Hello! My question is: Why does N6 open "2" windows when I click on an http://.htm link within Outlook 2000. I have N6 setup as my default browser and it does open only "1" window when a saved htm or html page is clicked on, but when I click a link in a "Email" message it opens the "2" windows. It only opens "1" if I click on a link on a page within N6 that is setup to open in a seperate window. This happens with mozilla nightlies too! -- Best regards, Eugene Savitsky. Menelon OU E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.menelon.ee
NS 6, WIN 2000 Problems
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask or not, but here goes. I installed NS 6 on this machine, and as time went on it crashed more and more frequently. One day I emptied the cache and the next time I tried to launch it more crashes. Now it won't even load any page before crasheing. I can hit the stop button and launch my email, newgroups and such just fine, just the navigator part crashes every single time. Any Ideas whats causing this or how to fix it? Thanks for any help. Jason Herold
NS 6+Win 2000 CRASHES!
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask or not, but here goes. I installed NS 6 on this machine, and as time went on it crashed more and more frequently. One day I emptied the cache and the next time I tried to launch it more crashes. Now it won't even load any page before crasheing. I can hit the stop button and launch my email, newgroups and such just fine, just the navigator part crashes every single time. Any Ideas whats causing this or how to fix it? Thanks for any help. Jason Herold
Re: NS 6, WIN 2000 Problems
In article 1103_977257029@rmg-athlon1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask or not, Actually, it isn't. You need to repost in either one of the netscape.public.beta.feedback.* or netscape.netscape6.* groups. The netscape.public.mozilla.* groups are for the Mozilla project. --- Scott I. Remick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Network and Information(802)388-7545 ext. 236 Systems ManagerFAX:(802)388-3697 Computer Alternatives, Inc.http://www.computeralt.com
All new! - Investigate Anyone or Anything with this program!
Internet Investigator All NEW for 2001!Internet Software Program for Investigating Find Anything and Anyone Online Become an "Internet Investigator" and explore a whole new world of valuable information. Uncover Information about:, neighbors, enemies, debtors, employees, your boss, yourself, even a new love interest! Click Here now for more Information! All requests to be taken off our list are AUTOMATICALLY honored upon receipt. Click here to be taken off our list. PLEASE understand that any effort to disrupt, close or block this DELETE account can only result in difficulties for others removal from our mailing list as it will be impossible honor their request if we prevented from receiving it! Each year the postal bulk mail industry consumes 1.5 trees for every man, woman child in the U.S. for the paper used in sending their advertisements and promotions. Using email can significantly reduce this consumption while also decreasing the amount of waste entering our landfills. Save the trees, save the planet, use email!
Re: View Source - no menu?
Daniel Veditz wrote: Jesse Ruderman wrote: Mac doesn't like the missing menu at all, that's bug 50877. At least one Windows user doesn't like them missing, either. Is there a bug to bring them back on all platforms? There's bug 32719, but that's been marked as a dup of a bug for keyboard shortcuts (?!). Bring them "back"? Communicator doesn't have menus for its View Source window either. -Dan Veditz We don't ..umm.. actually need these wonderful menus. We just need to be able to associate the 'view source' command with our favoured text editor. Textpad (Win32) or gEdit (linux) .. or 'whatever' on MacOS. That would be much better than having menu's in the Mozilla view source. After all it's a 'view source' not a text editor. (Hmm.. but would be nice to have a wrap screen toggle on it though) Blibble.. blah... --Azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for Mozzy type stuff)
Re: View Source - no menu?
Azrael wrote: Daniel Veditz wrote: Jesse Ruderman wrote: Mac doesn't like the missing menu at all, that's bug 50877. At least one Windows user doesn't like them missing, either. Is there a bug to bring them back on all platforms? There's bug 32719, but that's been marked as a dup of a bug for keyboard shortcuts (?!). Bring them "back"? Communicator doesn't have menus for its View Source window either. -Dan Veditz We don't ..umm.. actually need these wonderful menus. We just need to be able to associate the 'view source' command with our favoured text editor. Textpad (Win32) or gEdit (linux) .. or 'whatever' on MacOS. That would be much better than having menu's in the Mozilla view source. After all it's a 'view source' not a text editor. (Hmm.. but would be nice to have a wrap screen toggle on it though) Blibble.. blah... --Azrael [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for Mozzy type stuff) The text editor for Mac we have several choices. the one that comes with the System software is SimpleText. There are two other shareware or Freeware types. Freeware type is: BBEdit Lite (BareBones Software). The Shareware type is: Tex-Edit plus. -- -- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street|Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet -- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
Don't Get Ripped Off!
I'm sure... If my competitors get a hold of this letter, I might as well move out of the country! Let me explain. I'm in the business of setting people up to do business on the Internet. As you probably know, there's only a few things that you actually need to accomplish this 1. Something to sell 2. A working website 3. Traffic to the website 4. A way for people to pay you over the net. Here's my point. While my competitors are charging anywhere from $695 to a few thousand to get people set up to do business on the net, my company does it all for -- a one time -- complete price of $195! Maybe that's the reason we currently have over 180,000 clients using our services. (We list a large number of them on our website). The $195 includes everything... Your own Domain (website), Free website hosting unlimited email accounts, autoresponders, shopping cart system, online credit card acceptace (processing) system, Internet merchant account, Free software that creates your website, Free instructions on getting traffic to your website, and many other Free tools to neumerous to list in a short email message. Anyway, If you've been thinking about selling online, but thought it was too expensive or complicated or too confusing, you've been paying to much attention to my competitors. If you're interested and want to find out more, It's very simple to do. Simply call my office -- toll free -- 888-269-7960 and I'll be glad to explain everything to you in detail. Just be aware, that I might be on the phone helping someone else out. So kindly leave a message and I'll get right back to you. If you're not interested, just delete this message. You'll never hear from me again. I guarantee it! Merchant Systems
Right group ?
Anyone know why I can't go to https://www.fortify.net/sslcheck.html using Beonex 0.6-pre ? TIA T Lee
Re: Right group ?
At 23:37 19/12/2000 -0800, T Lee wrote: Anyone know why I can't go to https://www.fortify.net/sslcheck.html using Beonex 0.6-pre ? TIA It's fine here, you need to go to the Beonex support group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon T Lee
