Re: Moral high ground?
DeMoN LaG wrote: JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Feb 2002: Christ, this planet is populated with nothing but dumbasses I swear. For whatever reason, you pay for AOL's service. Ok, fine. So you then think you should have ads pumped at you? You're paying for an ad-pump service? I don't pay for AOL's service: Great! So you're not an AOL subscriber? http://www.aim.com/get_aim/win/latest_win.adp?aolperm=h http://www.aim.com/get_aim/linux/latest_linux.adp?aolperm=h Did you pay for AIM? Nope. Nor will I ever, seeing as I completely don't understand the attraction of Instant Messaging(tm). If I want to talk to somebody Instantly(tm) I'll call them on the phone. I get AIM for free because at the top of my buddy list there is a little ad banner that I never look at. And there are a bunch of things that pop up and annoy me by default. Trillian doesn't have these. Trillian has no advertising at all. So you should use this Trillian then, no? Thus, AOL pays money for bandwith and networking expenses for their AIM network, Ah, yeah, make that: AOL's suckers I mean subscribers pay money for... and they don't get money from advertising because no one uses the AIM client and AOL gets screwed out of money. Sounds like a pretty good arrangement to me. Tell me, can I use this Trillian with its no-ads if I'm an AOL subscriber? Oh, no, they want to pump ads at me there too, don't they, even though I'm paying for the service? That's like saying it's OK for people to just walk into my food store and just eat produce off the shelves, because we provide the service of selling food so you should be able to eat it for free. The logic doesn't hold water. In fact, it doesn't hold anything No, it's like saying it's OK to charge both the advertisor and the advertisee for ads, and to prevent the advertisee, who is paying to recieve the ads either way, from choosing to not see them. But hell, works for the cable companies, right?
Re: Moral high ground?
DeMoN LaG wrote: Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: The argument could even be made that clients like Everybuddy are adding value to AOL's network by allowing their client's users to connect with more people... Sure, you could make that argument. You could also argue that me downloading pirated, cracked versions of Windows XP is helping Microsoft sales because if I had a new OS I'd want to buy new software from MS to run on it. Doesn't matter though. AOL owns the network, they own the servers, they own the right to say Heck no, your client is no longer allowed to use our network! I don't understand the controversy over this. MS does the same thing with Hotmail's proprietary interface, and with MSN Messanger, why doesn't anyone complain about that? Probably because they're not the ones with the... monopoly.
Re: Moral high ground?
jesus X wrote: Chuck Simmons wrote: However, the TANSTAFL principle applies. You don't pay money and you learn to ignore ads. More than 50 years of commercial TV proves that it works. It's a no brainer that the same idea can work on the Internet. Indeed, TANSTAFL is the rule. It is not my rule, Grasshopper. It is Nature's rule. Plus there's the fact that the ads subsidize all the proprietary content on AOL (if you subscribe to THAT service, which isn't free), keeping the price where it is. ISPs that do not provide any content themselves charge the same amount, and have no ads. AOL provides content, and must either charge more for it, or run ads. They chose the latter. No, as you just said, they do *both*. Why? Because they can, because there are enough idiots willing to pay to see advertising in the world.
Re: Moral high ground?
Chuck Simmons wrote: JTK wrote: DeMoN LaG wrote: Jason Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Feb 2002: applications to undermine their system? They have created their own IM network, and I think that they have the right to ask users to use the AOL software. I don't think it's anti-competitive. I agree entirely. I think they could strike a deal with some client makers like Trillian, and say Hey, you guys can freeload, but you can't give people the software for free and not have ads in it and so we get no money and higher operating costs on it. Either Trillian's makers have to pay $xxx per month or something as a licensing fee, or they have to run ads for AOL in their software, like AOL has in it's software Christ, this planet is populated with nothing but dumbasses I swear. For whatever reason, you pay for AOL's service. Ok, fine. So you then think you should have ads pumped at you? You're paying for an ad-pump service? Lambs to the fricken slaughter. Why don't you lobby congress that you want your taxes raised too while you're at it? I didn't see anyone saying they were paying for IM or IM service. AOL users pay for AOL's service, correct? Instant Messaging(tm) is part of that service, correct? If I am (by some bizzarro-world freak accident) an AOL subscriber, should I not have the option to use whichever IM client I want to? And not have AOL's godforsaken ads staring me in the face? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Yes. (TEEHEHEEHEHE!! HE SAID YES! God.) However, the TANSTAFL principle applies. Not in this case. It has to be enforced, or all would indeed be enjoying a free lunch. If you define free as ~$20-a-month. You don't pay money I can be an AOL subscriber and not pay Steve Case a dime? Sweet! Where do I sign up for my bajillion free hours? I just love their proprietary client. and you learn to ignore ads. Nope, I learn to *block* the ads before they ever get to me! Technology can be a bitch on old paradigms, can't it? More than 50 years of commercial TV proves that it works. And more than 20 years of pay TV prove that people are actually so stupid that they will *pay* to look at *more* ads than they get on *free* TV. It's a no brainer that the same idea can work on the Internet. Unfortunately, no brainer is exactly the word for it. Indeed, TANSTAFL is the rule. It is not my rule, Grasshopper. It is Nature's rule. Indeed it is: Why give somebody what they paid for when you can pump ads at them instead?
Re: Mozilla Development
Rohit Tripathi wrote: The OS I am developing currently has no TCP/IP support. I do not know what changes must be made to mozilla source code to overcome this. How do I go about creating a TCP/IP stack for it? How does mozilla use the TCP/IP stack? Well, the different operating systems which Mozilla runs on use different TCP/IP stacks, so it depends on the OS how Mozilla uses the stack. The actual TCP/IP stack usage is part of NSPR. I think this file contains the TCP/IP code of NSPR: http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/nsprpub/pr/src/io/prsocket.c -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Moral high ground?
JTK wrote: AOL users pay for AOL's service, correct? Instant Messaging(tm) is part of that service, correct? You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: #1 Mozilla Problem
Nobody Special wrote: Back and Forward Back and Forward Back and Forward Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the back or forward buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes forever! I don't experience that on my computer. Mozilla just takes a few miliseconds more than IE to display pages. I just tried back/forwarding to http://www.mozillazine.org/ 0.16 seconds Seems OK to me. It does increase though to a few seconds when doing back/forward on a page which elements cannot be/disallows being cached , like f.x http://www.geforcefaq.com/faq.cgi
Re: Moral high ground?
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: I don't pay for AOL's service: Great! So you're not an AOL subscriber? No. If you had any idea how to check my headers, or read my signature, you'd see I'm an @home user who's ISP is transitioning from Comcast@Home to Comcast High Speed Internet http://www.aim.com/get_aim/win/latest_win.adp?aolperm=h http://www.aim.com/get_aim/linux/latest_linux.adp?aolperm=h Did you pay for AIM? Nope. Nor will I ever, seeing as I completely don't understand the attraction of Instant Messaging(tm). If I want to talk to somebody Instantly(tm) I'll call them on the phone. Nice. I don't call people on the phone just randomly chat while I'm getting ready to play Tribes 2. I can't phone 4 people at the same time, either. Maybe you can. I get AIM for free because at the top of my buddy list there is a little ad banner that I never look at. And there are a bunch of things that pop up and annoy me by default. Trillian doesn't have these. Trillian has no advertising at all. So you should use this Trillian then, no? You could. But then you'd need backups when AOL blocks your client from their servers Thus, AOL pays money for bandwith and networking expenses for their AIM network, Ah, yeah, make that: AOL's suckers I mean subscribers pay money for... No. The money required for running the AIM servers is generally got by running ads in AIM. Get free program, free access to AOL's chat network, 1 banner ad that you don't even have to look at. Don't like it? Go find another chat network and they don't get money from advertising because no one uses the AIM client and AOL gets screwed out of money. Sounds like a pretty good arrangement to me. Tell me, can I use this Trillian with its no-ads if I'm an AOL subscriber? Oh, no, they want to pump ads at me there too, don't they, even though I'm paying for the service? Yes, you can use Trillian if you are an AOL subscriber. You simply set your AOL screen name to away/No one can see me when I'm online, create an AIM screen name and sign on through Trillian. -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Moral high ground?
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: If I am (by some bizzarro-world freak accident) an AOL subscriber, should I not have the option to use whichever IM client I want to? And not have AOL's godforsaken ads staring me in the face? You can. ICQ works fine with AOL. Yahoo messenger, MSN Messenger, etc. No problems I know of. Use whatever you want -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? Do you guys actually write unit tests? I doubt it. There are so many bugs that are just broken features that have worked before. If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: - stop new features - have all the code reviewed - write unit tests - perform regression tests regularly - refine the check-in process (unit/regression test before checking in) - refactor where necessary - fix bugs - take your time: it's ready when it's ready - when the number of bugs is back to a normal level: rewrite project plans. If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Mozilla will be developed to death if you do not care. Do you know your peril? Ortwin Glück SW Engineer Switzerland
Re: Moral high ground?
Christian Biesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: JTK wrote: AOL users pay for AOL's service, correct? Instant Messaging(tm) is part of that service, correct? You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. To add, you pay AOL money (when they are your ISP) for internet access. I don't believe IM is part of the fee, as I know lots of AOL subscribers who don't use any type of IM because it's just not their thing. They don't get to pay $1.50 less a month because they don't use AOL IM. And yet still, I don't understand what the controversey here is over. Can someone please explain to me why AOL stopping 3rd party freebies from *stealing* their network resources and bandwith, not to mention potentially jeopardizing the integrity of AOL's network, is so wrong?? -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? Do you guys actually write unit tests? I doubt it. There are so many bugs that are just broken features that have worked before. If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: - stop new features - have all the code reviewed - write unit tests - perform regression tests regularly - refine the check-in process (unit/regression test before checking in) - refactor where necessary - fix bugs - take your time: it's ready when it's ready - when the number of bugs is back to a normal level: rewrite project plans. If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Mozilla will be developed to death if you do not care. Do you know your peril? Ortwin Glück SW Engineer Switzerland I'm beginning to think that some people from Microsoft are coding for Mozilla in order to make sure it doesn't become a competitor.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück wrote:
If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that
needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch.
Thanks for keeping it to a high language level.
You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases
while the number of users increases, hmm?
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla hover tips bug
On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:20:01 +0100, Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From that, we can conclude that *you* are working for AOL! For free!!! OHMYGOD!!! THIS IS AN AOL-TIME-WARNER-NETSACPE-JTKZILLA-EVIL-RED-COMMUNIST-NAZI-GARY-VAN-SICKLE-MICROSOFT-NBC-US-GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY!!! THEY ARE AFTER US!!! THEY ARE TRYING TO GET US!!! RUN!!! AARR!!! You forgot to mention the Illuminati, Majestic 12, and the Freemasons.
Re: Oh god, what is this BS on Tech TV?
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:47:17 -0600, JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Randall Parker wrote: I misread your subject title and thought it said B5 as in Babylon 5. Who cares about the fools that complain? My advice is tell all your ...soon-to-be former... friends to use Mozilla, send them a link to a download page, and doing that will do more to help the situation than complaining about foolish commentators. Good to see that JTK is being his usual helpful self. /sarcasm
Re: Oh god, what is this BS on Tech TV?
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:49:36 -0600, JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mykel wrote: JTK wrote: Randall Parker wrote: I misread your subject title and thought it said B5 as in Babylon 5. Who cares about the fools that complain? My advice is tell all your ...soon-to-be former... friends to use Mozilla, send them a link to a download page, and doing that will do more to help the situation than complaining about foolish commentators. Is that what happened to you? all your friends shunned you so you have to harrass everyone in here to get attention? (S**T, that makes me a hypocrite now) Ah, no. If *I* had drooled to *my* friends and family how great Netscape 6 I mean Mozilla was knowing full well what an embarassing heap it is, there probably woulnd't be enough left of me to type anything at all, much less spearhead the Mozilla Fiasco-Mitigation Initiative. But hey, if you want to help Mozilla make even more enemies, knock yourself out. Pity.
Re: Moral high ground?
On 3 Feb 2002 07:17:25 GMT, DeMoN LaG n@a wrote: Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: The argument could even be made that clients like Everybuddy are adding value to AOL's network by allowing their client's users to connect with more people... Sure, you could make that argument. You could also argue that me downloading pirated, cracked versions of Windows XP is helping Microsoft sales because if I had a new OS I'd want to buy new software from MS to run on it. Doesn't matter though. AOL owns the network, they own the servers, they own the right to say Heck no, your client is no longer allowed to use our network! I don't understand the controversy over this. MS does the same thing with Hotmail's proprietary interface, and with MSN Messanger, why doesn't anyone complain about that? I don't complain about it. I just don't use it.
Re: Anchor tags in NS 4
Rich wrote: Adrienne wrote: Richard Bozman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Siôn wrote: Can anyone tell me if NS 4 supports Anchors (see example code @ bottom of page) and if not is there an alterntive Example code: html head titleAnchor test/title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 put the complete url here . a href=http://all the url/and page.html#testlink to anchor/a br br br a name=test/a /body /html AFAIK there is no need to put the complete URL, especially if the anchor is on the same page. a name=testbla bla bla/a . a href=#topTop of page/a The only time you would need an absolute reference is if the anchor is on another site. -- Adrienne Boswell find me on http://www.nextblock.com - keyword arbpen What you have in the example above a name=test/a /body /html is called an empty anchor. There is no text or anything else from the page between the a name=test part and the /a part. Insert text from the page, that should appear at the top of screen. This is explained somewhere on the Netscape help site. Empty anchors are tricky, they usually work on the same page, but depends on which version you are using. Sometimes they come up a couple of lines off where you want. If you are linking to an anchor on another page, empty anchors have even a less chance to work right. Hope this helps. rich The problem is most likely the spaces, which are illegal in URLs. If you really MUST use spaces (and I really don't understand why), you must use %20 as any extended character must be escaped. I now use a name=home /a notice the space, but the only browser that has given me an error about an empty anchor is Mosaic. -- | Later. | Ric. |
Increase Your Ejaculation by 600%... Look Inside
New Medical break through has now created a revolutionary herbal pill that is guaranteed to increase your Semen and EJACULATION by almost 600% in just a few short weeks! - Increase Ejaculation by almost 600%! - Increase Sex drive - Stronger Erections - Longer Lasting Orgasms! - More Intense Orgasms - Shoot Ejaculate up to 13 feet! This amazing new product works by simply taking 2 pills every day... Click Below Now! http://64.118.7.14/volumze/ We are so confident in the REAL SCIENCE of these pills that we offer a 30-day money back guarantee. To order go to here or call 626-440-1747 M to F 8:00am to 6:00pm Pacific standard time To be removed go to http://64.118.7.14/remove/ Results may vary
Re: Anchor tags in NS 4
Please go to : news://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.macintosh for Mac Communicator general Questions news://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator for windows Communicator General Questions news://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator.unix for Unix Communicator General Questions news://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia for Communicator Questions related to creation of HTML wepages and html in email. (Caution up to this point many of the tricks and techniques make use of ebedded sound and Javascript Layer tags, which (Layer tags) are considered more evil than ActiveX, or the devil himself in the Moz newsgroups.) This group is meant for answering questions concerning Mozilla. The 110% W3C standards compliant replacement for Netscape Communicator and Internet Explorer. Ric Gates wrote: Rich wrote: Adrienne wrote: Richard Bozman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Siôn wrote: Can anyone tell me if NS 4 supports Anchors (see example code @ bottom of page) and if not is there an alterntive Example code: html head titleAnchor test/title meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 /head body bgcolor=#FF text=#00 put the complete url here . a href=http://all the url/and page.html#testlink to anchor/a br br br a name=test/a /body /html AFAIK there is no need to put the complete URL, especially if the anchor is on the same page. a name=testbla bla bla/a . a href=#topTop of page/a The only time you would need an absolute reference is if the anchor is on another site. -- Adrienne Boswell find me on http://www.nextblock.com - keyword arbpen What you have in the example above a name=test/a /body /html is called an empty anchor. There is no text or anything else from the page between the a name=test part and the /a part. Insert text from the page, that should appear at the top of screen. This is explained somewhere on the Netscape help site. Empty anchors are tricky, they usually work on the same page, but depends on which version you are using. Sometimes they come up a couple of lines off where you want. If you are linking to an anchor on another page, empty anchors have even a less chance to work right. Hope this helps. rich The problem is most likely the spaces, which are illegal in URLs. If you really MUST use spaces (and I really don't understand why), you must use %20 as any extended character must be escaped. I now use a name=home /a notice the space, but the only browser that has given me an error about an empty anchor is Mosaic. -- | Later. | Ric. | -- --- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --- If it's fixed, don't break it! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm
Re: Moral high ground?
JTK wrote: No, as you just said, they do *both*. Why? Because they can, because there are enough idiots willing to pay to see advertising in the world. No, they do both because they have to. I guarantee you if they could make all their money and charge $4.95 a month, they'd do it to get a huge market share. And even if they do both but don't have to, what's wrong with that? They're a business, and do so to make money. They lock out unauthorized AIM-clone clients because that service is free, subsidized with ads, and they don't want someone else using their network for free. -- jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ] email [ jesusx @ who.net ] web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ] tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ] warning [ I hate cats. You never know if they're dead. - E. Schrodinger ]
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? No. It is the bug reporters. Where is this going to end? Do you guys actually write unit tests? I doubt it. There are so many bugs that are just broken features that have worked before. The only problem which I see with the ever increasing number of bugs is longer search times on Bugzilla. Everything else gets better. If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: - stop new features - have all the code reviewed - write unit tests - perform regression tests regularly - refine the check-in process (unit/regression test before checking in) - refactor where necessary - fix bugs - take your time: it's ready when it's ready - when the number of bugs is back to a normal level: rewrite project plans. - close Bugzilla, so that no new bugs are submitted. RB
Re: #1 Mozilla Problem
CeeJay wrote: Nobody Special wrote: Back and Forward Back and Forward Back and Forward Sure, Mozilla can load a page the *first* time pretty fast, but hit the back or forward buttons to re-display a page, and Mozilla takes forever! I don't experience that on my computer. Mozilla just takes a few miliseconds more than IE to display pages. I just tried back/forwarding to http://www.mozillazine.org/ 0.16 seconds Seems OK to me. It does increase though to a few seconds when doing back/forward on a page which elements cannot be/disallows being cached , like f.x http://www.geforcefaq.com/faq.cgi Try with something like mysql's documentation...
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:3C5D2A89.8050206 @odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 03 Feb 2002: If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: And I'm sure there are a *ton* of people here in the groups and working on Mozilla that are glad you *aren't* a project manager. I wouldn't want someone with your attitude running the Wendies down the street from my house -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
what is the keyboard shortcut for tabbed browsing?
Not talking about the search tabs etc. on the left, but tabbed browsing that allows multiple browsing in one window like Opera.
Re: what is the keyboard shortcut for tabbed browsing?
Tom Hatta wrote:
Not talking about the search tabs etc. on the left, but tabbed browsing
that allows multiple browsing in one window like Opera.
Ctrl-T opens a new tab. Ctrl-Pg{Up,Down} cycles through the open tabs.
Is that what you wanted to know?
Regards,
Parish
--
Software is like sex, it's better when it's free - Linus Torvalds
Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience
Re: MOz 0.9.8
CSL wrote: Fulvio, Try this near final 0.9.8. It is 99.999% final according to asa. http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.8/ Fulvio Perini wrote: alpha wrote: 0.9.7 was released on the day the roadmap did stat it was to be released. But 0.9.8 is far behind anyone know why. ? I have not had any mayor error using 0.9.7 the last 3-4 weeks so why is 0.9.8 see fare behind. ? 0.9.7 was not so good for me,and,the nightlies which followed were steps back.I finally saw progress with the latest nightlies,starting 1-25. It may depend on the individual,but I never had so many crashes as I did in 0.9.7 and most nightlies. Did you ever try Print Preview in 0.9.7.The scroll bar looks like a Christmas tree(appropriate,because of the season,but unintentional,I hope). Today's nightly is the first in long time which has not given me problems with the location bar,and it is a 0.9.8+. I would like to see a stable Mozilla,before I see another Netscape. I am still using 0.9.6 as my standard. Thanks,I downloaded the .zip file,and,as usual,I opened from the unzipped bin folder.No crash with a normal looking Print Preview.Only glitch,the back and forward arrows were pointing at the correct directions when I first started,but are pointing up now,although they do what they should do. This odditiy appeared first with one of the December nightly,and had finally gone away with latest 0.9.8+ nightlies.No problem,but it is odd.
Re: Moral high ground?
Nigel L appends: jesus X wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> ...if they could make alltheir money and charge $4.95 a month, they'd do it to get a huge market share.And even if they do both but don't have to, what's wrong with that? They're abusiness, and do so to make money. They lock out unauthorized AIM-clone clientsbecause that service is free, subsidized with ads, and they don't want someoneelse using their network for free. This discussion overlooks the fact that there are alternative IM services. My situation (AOL subscriber, BTW) is that I have several Yahoo friends in Australia/Far East and want to know when they are available, along with my AIM friends who are exclusively US. No, I do not want to load multiple chat clients simultaneously. Rgds, Nigel L [EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Re: Moral high ground?
DeMoN LaG wrote: I don't understand the controversy over this. MS does the same thing with Hotmail's proprietary interface, and with MSN Messanger, why doesn't anyone complain about that? Alternative clients can communicate with MSN Messenger clients just fine and I haven't heard any news stories recently like the ones with Trillian and AOL IM. As for Hotmail's proprietary interface, you haven't been paying very good attention to this newsgroup if you don't think anyone is complaining about that...
JTK has no life NEEDS YOUR HELP
Please talk to JTk he needs something to make him feel alive again!
How can I import all my newsgoups from another Moz profile?
I'm one of the @Home to Comcast conversionees, if there is such a word. Anyhow, I had to set up an new profile to order to change the mail settings. But, that's another story. Now I'd like to simply import or copy all my newsgroups [about 40] to the new profile. How can I do this? Moz has importing for IE, etc. but not its own profiles. Thanks.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Every application we write at my place of employment for one.
The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster
rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness.
Sören Kuklau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Ortwin Glück wrote:
If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that
needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch.
Thanks for keeping it to a high language level.
You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases
while the number of users increases, hmm?
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Perhaps if he did, the fries wouldn't be soggy all the time like every Wendy's in my area. It is a perfectly reasonable attitude after a project has been going on for 5 years. It is simply inexcusable for a simple piece of software like a web browser to be taking scores of man-years to develop with a constantly growing bug list a mile long. Heaven forbid you were all working on an operating system or at NASA. I know my project manager wouldn't stand for this. We have put out mission-critical software for our business, containing a million lines of code with a group of 10-15 programmers in under 9 months. It has been running in production for 2 years. It's not rocket science. DeMoN LaG n@a wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ortwin Glück [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:3C5D2A89.8050206 @odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 03 Feb 2002: If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: And I'm sure there are a *ton* of people here in the groups and working on Mozilla that are glad you *aren't* a project manager. I wouldn't want someone with your attitude running the Wendies down the street from my house -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
The Posting One wrote: The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. You do realize that many of the new bugs are enhancements, not real bug reports? -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Irresponsible IRC administration on irc.mozilla.org
They seem to have banned the most important dialup provider from Argentina. I'm seeing: -irc.mozilla.org- *** Banned: spammer (2001/11/23 21.31) Ok, there might have been a spam mail from somebody at Ciudad Digital on november last year, but blocking half of a country is stupid and silly. Even more so when this isn't e-mail, this is IRC.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Christian Biesinger wrote: The Posting One wrote: The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. You do realize that many of the new bugs are enhancements, not real bug reports? And many others are tracking bugs, many aren't even related to Mozilla, but Bugzilla, mozilla.org, etc. That search was selected with Product = All, not a good choice. Even Mozquest does better than that... -- jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ] email [ jesusx @ who.net ] web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ] tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ] warning [ I hate cats. You never know if they're dead. - E. Schrodinger ]
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
The Posting One wrote: You sure can show me a project where the number of new bugs decreases while the number of users increases, hmm? Every application we write at my place of employment for one. The number of users does not matter. Bugs should be decreasing at a faster rate than new code being put in. Otherwise, there's no end to the madness. I think you misunderstood Sören's question. He was talking about _known_ bugs. Most of the new bugs have always existed in Mozilla, they just hadn't been found yet. So the bug numbers _are_ decreasing. -- Disclaimer: This disclaimer is not required by my employer. This article does not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. This article does not necessarily disagree with my employer either. Have a nice day!
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück wrote: If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Mozilla will be developed to death if you do not care. Do you know your peril? WHOA there buddy. Now, Maozilla may be chock full 'o' bugs, but it's not THAT bad. Now, I'm the first person to say where the lizard needs help, but in the area of taking their time to do it right they have no problems. I got them to fix the context menu, the cache bug, and they're on the way to producing the best build yet (thanks to me) with 0.9.8. Two more months, and no more commie graphics, and we'll have the best browser around. I'm going to have to whip them into shape with mail/news, though. I don't say it too much for fear they'll get lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
JTK wrote: I don't say it too much for fear they'll get lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time. I'm confused. -- Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh er spørgsmålet dumt.
Re: How can I import all my newsgoups from another Moz profile?
And it came to pass that Al Rider wrote:
I'm one of the @Home to Comcast conversionees, if there is
such a word.
Anyhow, I had to set up an new profile to order to change
the mail settings. But, that's another story.
Now I'd like to simply import or copy all my newsgroups
[about 40] to the new profile.
How can I do this?
Moz has importing for IE, etc. but not its own profiles.
Thanks.
Close Moz, and open Windows Explorer. Copy the appropriate
server folder from one profile's MAIL folder to the other.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Trust I seek and I find in you, everyday to eat something new.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? I think that your assertion is incorrect (as other posters have stated), but let me try to provide some justification. If the increase in bug count was indicative of truly new bugs, i.e., regressions, we would indeed be in trouble. Having done QA on and off in the Layout component for over a year, the problem is mostly one of design flaws in Bugzilla, rather than the Mozilla code. To wit: 1) It is difficult to find specific bugs in Bugzilla. Whether this is a problem with the search interface, or whether we need to be somehow tagging bugs with a larger and greater variety of keywords (perhaps in a semi-automatic way), I can't exactly say; but as it stands, there's probably a reasonable percentage of duplicate bugs buried in there that no one has spotted. 2) There are a lot of ueseless bugs in Bugzilla. Component owners may file bugs as reminders to themselves to reorganize some data structure later, be sidelined by other work, and the bug may drift on through another owner or two long after the data structure is removed from the code. There are enhancements ranging from the reasonable to the utterly unlikely. There are bugs reported and confirmed a year ago on a then-current build that have never been reproduced again... Basically, I would say that while there are certainly regressions, they are being kept at a manageable level, based on what I've seen. However, given the current state of Bugzilla, I can't compile the statistics to prove it. Unfortunately, the current Bugzilla model, with default assignees and QA contacts, is a serious roadblock to fixing this problem. While this is still holding up in some of the smaller components, in large components like layout, the system has utterly collapsed. What is needed to remedy it is some significant changes in Bugzilla's concepts of state, introducing more levels of granularity between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. Bugs would drop into here until QA personnel and the bug reporter could clearly determine the cause of the problem (i.e., the margin on this td is wrong rather than this page doesn't work) and produce a consistently reproducible testcase. Only after this was done would the bugs be marked as real bugs and assigned or chosen by programmers. I believe that a system along these lines would produce bug statistics that more accurately reflected the state of the product. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
And I suppose your software is designed to run on 8+ operating systems each of which has its own expectations for how a UI should intuitively work, isn't lacking any conceivable feature, and is designed to handle malformed/error-filled/intentionally malicious input in a way other than rejecting it... The Posting One wrote: Perhaps if he did, the fries wouldn't be soggy all the time like every Wendy's in my area. It is a perfectly reasonable attitude after a project has been going on for 5 years. It is simply inexcusable for a simple piece of software like a web browser to be taking scores of man-years to develop with a constantly growing bug list a mile long. Heaven forbid you were all working on an operating system or at NASA. I know my project manager wouldn't stand for this. We have put out mission-critical software for our business, containing a million lines of code with a group of 10-15 programmers in under 9 months. It has been running in production for 2 years. It's not rocket science.
Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards
I checked this out on my high powered PC at work (1Ghz, 512 Mb, NT) and noticed something interesting: Total page re-display time for IE and Moz seems about the same (about a second). Moz may even be a little bit faster. However, when you press forward/back in IE, the page immediately changes whereas, in Moz, the page does not change immediately. In IE, some time is then spent redrawing. In Moz, when the page does change, it appears all at once.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Blake Ross wrote: Fact: you are terribly misinformed. The number of bugs has skyrocketed over the years because the number of people reporting them has skyrocketed over the years, and because we have more features and components than we used to. Statistics corroborate this. You seem to be suggesting that developers get worse over time and start creating more bugs per checkin, which doesn't make any sense. A certain anti-news/FUD site relating to Mozilla uses similarly fuzzy math, which has been thoroughly dispelled at MozillaNews.org in the Lies, Damned Lies, and MozillaQuest article, located here: http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=60 You are 100% right. In fact, I call it Bugzilla Inflation, and go into detail in that article under the Bugzilla Inflation and Bugzilla Facts sections. thanks go to Asa for helping me compile those numbers, too. -- jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ] email [ jesusx @ who.net ] web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ] tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ] warning [ I hate cats. You never know if they're dead. - E. Schrodinger ]
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
The number of bugs has skyrocketed over the years because the number of people reporting them has skyrocketed over the years, and because we have more features and components than we used to. Statistics corroborate this. You seem to be suggesting that developers get worse over time and start creating more bugs per checkin, which doesn't make any sense. Thank you for knowing everything, though. Blake P.S. How is 5/99 'half a year ago'? Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? Do you guys actually write unit tests? I doubt it. There are so many bugs that are just broken features that have worked before. If I were a Mozilla project manager I would suggest: - stop new features - have all the code reviewed - write unit tests - perform regression tests regularly - refine the check-in process (unit/regression test before checking in) - refactor where necessary - fix bugs - take your time: it's ready when it's ready - when the number of bugs is back to a normal level: rewrite project plans. If you do not act now you will be lost in completely fucked-up code that needs (again) a complete rewrite from scratch. Mozilla will be developed to death if you do not care. Do you know your peril? Ortwin Glück SW Engineer Switzerland
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
but you don't have to figure in all the variables that mozilla has to deal with, do you have any idea how many protocals, standards, and platforms issues that mozilla has to deal with for you get a decent browser? it may not be a million-lines of code, but I'd like to see your million-lines of code program do half as many things mozilla can. -its not like you can just do windows calls from already compiled MS com or Active X and drop them into mozilla. Its by far the hardest problem to deal with next to creating an OS. Windows 2000 has over 63,000 open bugs in it. Mozilla is doing well, I'd say, but will need help solving the bugzilla problem. -dman84 Travis Crump wrote: And I suppose your software is designed to run on 8+ operating systems each of which has its own expectations for how a UI should intuitively work, isn't lacking any conceivable feature, and is designed to handle malformed/error-filled/intentionally malicious input in a way other than rejecting it... The Posting One wrote: Perhaps if he did, the fries wouldn't be soggy all the time like every Wendy's in my area. It is a perfectly reasonable attitude after a project has been going on for 5 years. It is simply inexcusable for a simple piece of software like a web browser to be taking scores of man-years to develop with a constantly growing bug list a mile long. Heaven forbid you were all working on an operating system or at NASA. I know my project manager wouldn't stand for this. We have put out mission-critical software for our business, containing a million lines of code with a group of 10-15 programmers in under 9 months. It has been running in production for 2 years. It's not rocket science.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming of the XUL XML, and probably how all the XPCOM XPAPPS, Tools Widgets stuff work.. which hopefully done right, would allow this vision I have to come to fruitation. It will greatly easy bugzilla's problem. I would need to write specs first too. It only exists as a project idea on paper. My current time is taken to help mozilla get to the 1.0 status.. and to download/test as many nightlies as I can for my w2k box. I used to work for a development company where I did a lot of beta testing and I have a degree in CIS. Right now I have a physically intensive labor job which pays really good, yet really wears me down.. and cuts down my time to actually learn more about mozilla. But I am looking for better.. testing code is by far easier than actually writing it and fixing it without codebase knowledge. One area I think that would be helpful, is a download file that mozilla compiles to get everything working on a certain platform, then just telling us to download this problem, write this here.. etc, just shy of distribution of pay-software programs. I just dont have to time to get a machine up and running just so I can spend forever trying to figure out how to get it compile. -dman84 Chris Hoess wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 Bugs are taking over! Fact: The number of bugs is now three times as high as half a year ago: over 12,000 open bugs! Are Mozilla developers creating more bugs than they (can ever) fix? Where is this going to end? I think that your assertion is incorrect (as other posters have stated), but let me try to provide some justification. If the increase in bug count was indicative of truly new bugs, i.e., regressions, we would indeed be in trouble. Having done QA on and off in the Layout component for over a year, the problem is mostly one of design flaws in Bugzilla, rather than the Mozilla code. To wit: 1) It is difficult to find specific bugs in Bugzilla. Whether this is a problem with the search interface, or whether we need to be somehow tagging bugs with a larger and greater variety of keywords (perhaps in a semi-automatic way), I can't exactly say; but as it stands, there's probably a reasonable percentage of duplicate bugs buried in there that no one has spotted. 2) There are a lot of ueseless bugs in Bugzilla. Component owners may file bugs as reminders to themselves to reorganize some data structure later, be sidelined by other work, and the bug may drift on through another owner or two long after the data structure is removed from the code. There are enhancements ranging from the reasonable to the utterly unlikely. There are bugs reported and confirmed a year ago on a then-current build that have never been reproduced again... Basically, I would say that while there are certainly regressions, they are being kept at a manageable level, based on what I've seen. However, given the current state of Bugzilla, I can't compile the statistics to prove it. Unfortunately, the current Bugzilla model, with default assignees and QA contacts, is a serious roadblock to fixing this problem. While this is still holding up in some of the smaller components, in large components like layout, the system has utterly collapsed. What is needed to remedy it is some significant changes in Bugzilla's concepts of state, introducing more levels of granularity between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. Bugs would drop into here until QA personnel and the bug reporter could clearly determine the cause of the problem (i.e., the margin on this td is wrong rather than this page doesn't work) and produce a consistently reproducible testcase. Only after this was done would the bugs be marked as real bugs and assigned or chosen by programmers. I believe that a system along these lines would produce bug statistics that more accurately reflected the state of the product.
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:3C5DB7AD.6578A3D7 @hgdjaggd.com, on 03 Feb 2002: the cache bug, Sorry, I don't recall you fixing this one, just bitching for a week when a 30 second Edit, Preferences, Advanced, Cache, Clear disk cache would have fixed it for you. Do you have a bug number, or a copy of the patch you made that fixed this bug? -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Pls Test: Moz.097 + IE6 + NT-SP - Crash+repair
Um, folks, this is a potential ATI problem, someone with an ATI needs to confirm the failure. Alas I have no ATI cards, so I cannot confirm or deny this issue either, but I am familiar with the type of problem.
It's a Latin Orgy! PLUS How can he do it with a schlong that big?
February 3, 2002 You won't believeyour eyes! Hear your fantasiescome alive Instant access to hotamateur webcam action Want to get lucky???Play with them!!!48 Puzzle Pieces GET A FREE PASS!!! Photos of WomenSeeking Men Fantasies of WomenSeeking Men Make Your Penis GROW Free SexLesbiansPussyHardcoreTeens BoobsPicsAmateurLive VideoFantasies FUCK SOMEBODY'S WIFE TONIGHT The wildest site for finding more than 74,000 absolutely REAL women for sex! They're 100% real, no models! Email them, meet them, fuck them! SQUIRTS Bucketloads of oozing cum and warm, flowing piss. Golden showers, ejaculations, water sports, girls pissing, cum baths, wet panties, nasty pictorials and more... FOR FREE!!! IF THERE'S GRASS ON THE FIELD, PLAY BALL! Finger the babysitter! Fuck the girl next door! Squeeze perky tits! Lick hot teen pussy! Watch as hidden cameras catch teenage girls doing the things you've only dreamed about! They're barely legal, but totally ripe. CLUB ONLINE The world's hottest men's magazine is online and smokin'! See your favorite centerfolds in hot hardcore action at the only site edited by porn star Jenna Jameson. This guy must have had a blast in high school Click here to see the biggest dick on earth BARELY LEGAL LESBIANS Fresh, 18 year old college girls eating pussy for the first time! Strap-ons, school girls, threesomes, hardcore movies, teen photos, xxx chat, voyeur cams, downloadable videos and much more! 100% FREE LIFETIME VIP ACCESS!!! BLACK PUSSY SPECIALTY Totally black nasty for black beauty lovers! These black bitches know how to get down - huge black tits, black on black love, facial cum baths, booty humpin' and more! FULL SCREEN VHS QUALITY ON YOUR COMPUTER Changing the way you view adult content on the Internet, TeN.com works through cable for unbelievable clear video connections on your computer. You've never seen anything like it! CUM IN OUR PORTAL The most interactive adult entertainment you can get without getting arrested! Live sex shows you direct, phone sex, live chat with horny whores, Snoop Dogg's x-rated videos, strippers, porn stars, and more! FIND A WOMAN, GET LAID More than 700,000 horny members are waiting for you to find someone perfect to fulfill your wildest fantasies! Our members want to make your wettest dreams come true. ALL YOU CAN EAT ORGIES Fresh gang bangs served hot daily! Order up some triple decker fuck sandwiches, a little nibble of the Houston Gang Bang 620, a BLT (Black and Latina Threesome), and a side of fresh cum shots for some nasty hardcore gang bang fun. FARM GIRLS LOVE PUSSY The biggest roundup of horny lesbian sluts is at LesboFarm.com - where the farmer's daughter LOVES to lick pussy! Constantly rotating videos, exclusive dyke pics, live cunt shows, and spy cams make for a snatch-a-licious good time! SUCK ON THESE TITTIES These hefty globes are made for sucking and big dicks! With thousands of massive milkers photos, hundreds of hardcore big boob videos, live stacked sluts sex shows - your big boob fantasies come alive at Boobizon.com NOTE: This is not SPAM! This email was sent to you because your email was entered on a website requesting to be a registered subscriber. If you did not request this email, click here to unsubscribe
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonas Jørgensen wrote: JTK wrote: I don't say it too much for fear they'll get lazy, but Mozilla really is the best browser to come along in a long time. I'm confused. The headers seem slightly...odd. If this is sarcasm, it's not like JTK to be so subtle about it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Pls Test: Moz.097 + IE6 + NT-SP - Crash+repair
Bill wrote: Um, folks, this is a potential ATI problem, someone with an ATI needs to confirm the failure. Alas I have no ATI cards, so I cannot confirm or deny this issue either, but I am familiar with the type of problem. I don't see any issue on my machine. I see light grey horizontal stripes behind all of the background, which seems to be as expected because of the background image on the main frame. My video card is VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RF (rev 0). and I'm running on Mozilla 0.9.8+ (today's build, from source on this machine. This is a Linux system, though - it may not be that relevant. Also, I know the Rage 128's are not that similar to earlier Rage cards. -- Jim Patterson Ottawa, Ont CANADA
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Chris Hoess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Feb 2002: The headers seem slightly...odd. If this is sarcasm, it's not like JTK to be so subtle about it. snipping all references, cause they are horrendously long Last post: Path: secnews.netscape.com!not-for-mail From: JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.general Subject: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death! Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:20:29 -0500 Organization: Another Netscape Collabra Server User Lines: 14 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NNTP-Posting-Host: r-185.181.alltel.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.minneapolis-05-10rs.mn.dial-access.att.net Xref: secnews.netscape.com netscape.public.mozilla.general:40561 Post from a few weeks ago: Path: secnews.netscape.com!not-for-mail From: JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.general Subject: Re: Cache defect not fixed Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 03:32:44 -0600 Organization: Another Netscape Collabra Server User Lines: 206 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.minneapolis-01-02rs.mn.dial-access.att.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: secnews.netscape.com netscape.public.mozilla.general:39114 Either JTK did/did not take his medication this morning, or this was a very good attempt at forgery, going as far as faking an NNTP posting host to look like it's from the same ISP. I'd say that was really him -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], dman84 wrote: Chris, that is where I come in. I have a project that I'd like to start after mozilla's 1.0 codebase is API fixed.. to then create a new bugzill a tool.. that will help this problem. I need to learn the programming of the XUL XML, and probably how all the XPCOM XPAPPS, Tools Widgets stuff work.. which hopefully done right, would allow this vision I have to come to fruitation. It will greatly easy bugzilla's problem. Is this related to the Bugzapp! project I've heard of? Can you be a little more explicit? I'm curious... I would need to write specs first too. It only exists as a project idea on paper. My current time is taken to help mozilla get to the 1.0 status.. and to download/test as many nightlies as I can for my w2k box. It's good to know someone else is out there triaging ;-) I should be back in action as soon as I get CVS unhorked (bad maintainer, bad...) I used to work for a development company where I did a lot of beta testing and I have a degree in CIS. Right now I have a physically intensive labor job which pays really good, yet really wears me down.. and cuts down my time to actually learn more about mozilla. But I am looking for better.. testing code is by far easier than actually writing it and fixing it without codebase knowledge. One area I think that would be helpful, is a download file that mozilla compiles to get everything working on a certain platform, then just telling us to download this problem, write this here.. etc, just shy of distribution of pay-software programs. I just dont have to time to get a machine up and running just so I can spend forever trying to figure out how to get it compile. Admittedly, I've only ever built on a Linux box, but I get the impression that if you've installed Cygwin (which is pretty much a prerequisite for Unix-ish development on a Win32 box) and have VC++, it's not tremendously difficult to build. I do enjoy the ability with custom builds to specify optimization level (I have it cranked to -O3 at the moment), and get a build with all the trimmings of extensions, so to speak. OTOH, setting up tests is nothing to sneeze at, either. URL:http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/20020115/, the CSS3 Selectors test, URL:http://www.bath.ac.uk/~py8ieh/internet/eviltests/, URL:http://www.hixie.ch/tests/, URL:http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/test, URL:http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/dom/test, are all nice big test collections; I know there's a bunch of DOM stuff out there, too, such as URL:http://xw2k.sdct.itl.nist.gov/xml/page6.html. The scary part is that this still only scratches the surface of the things you can do with layout...apparently there are some broken parser tests, too, which I'd like to work on reviving when my shipment of round tuits comes in. It's probably not possible, given the current setup of Bugzilla, but it would be neat to see a standards testsuite tightly integrated with it. -- Chris Hoess
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 13:18:17 +0100, Ortwin Glück [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :Looking at the bug statistics at :http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 :Bugs are taking over! The rate of new bugs is roughly proportional to the number of active bug hunters. The rate of new bugs accelerates as more testers are added. Mozilla 200202xx is superior in every way to Mozilla 26xx. So the number of Bugzilla reports can't be the whole story. -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/ burger king apple fritters taste like cunt. (siani evans)
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
dman84 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... but you don't have to figure in all the variables that mozilla has to deal with, do you have any idea how many protocals, standards, and platforms issues that mozilla has to deal with for you get a decent browser? it may not be a million-lines of code, but I'd like to see your million-lines of code program do half as many things mozilla can. Take a look at all the things that Opera can do with far less code and a much faster browser. That is the approach Mozilla should take, speed not bells. -- Kyle Netscape 6.x still sucks
[OT] The forefront of computer technology?
Sorry for the OT post (although given some of the shit posted here) but I think this is has to be seen to be believed. Someone built a working DAT tape loader from Lego. http://homepage.mac.com/brother_lizardo/PhotoAlbum3.html Regards, Parish.
Re: Moral high ground?
Christian Biesinger wrote: JTK wrote: AOL users pay for AOL's service, correct? Instant Messaging(tm) is part of that service, correct? You can use AIM without being an AOL customer. If I am an AOL customer, can I use this Trillian and not have to look at spam I mean ads?
Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!
Ortwin Glück wrote: Looking at the bug statistics at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-output=show_chartdatasets=NEW%3Adatasets=ASSIGNED%3Adatasets=REOPENED%3Adatasets=UNCONFIRMED%3Alinks=1banner=1 They should pull that down, it just makes Mozilla look bad to see all those defects just a-climbin' into the stratosphere. [snip] If I were a Mozilla project manager You hit the nail on the head right there. Heretofore there has been, from all outward indications, no management whatsoever of the Mozilla project. Hence the disaster you see before you. It has been recently announced, so many years now after the damage was done, that there is now an actual manager of some sort. Its way to late at this point for it to make any difference of course, but it will be interesting to see what sorts of massive upheavals happen in a vain attempt to get Mozilla past that 1% adoption barrier.
