date:20020204


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> 
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> on 04 Feb 2002:
> 
> >> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are
> >> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts?
> >>
> >
> > It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back
> > down to earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative
> > "mind" share - it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an
> > image helped tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a
> > tough row to hoe, and crying about poorly-written websites and
> > deluding yourself into thinking people will tolerate something
> > sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just because it has a commie star on it and
> > "isn't M$" is nothing but a self-defeating fantasy.
> 
> Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed
> Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows
> 3.0% market share.

Check with "TheCounter.com".  If you dare.

>  JTK just refuses to acknowledge that Mozilla and
> it's derivitives are actually gaining market share.

Indeed I do, because indeed they aren't.

>  Get with the
> program JTK.  Are you going to cling to this .75% like you cling to the
> "Hyatt said Mozilla is 4 times slower than IE" thing?
> 

Well, I have to admit the number is actually closer to 0.7_3_%.

Oops.

Mozilla becomes viable in 2007 (if the world stands still) (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)

Jason Johnston wrote:
> 
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> > Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed
> > Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows
> > 3.0% market share.
> 
> Would you mind posting a link to that website here?  I'd much appreciate
> it.  Thanks.
> --J

He won't, but I'd *LOVE* to!  Here ya go, this is the one he's referring
to:

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

OH MY!  LOOK, IT'S UP TO 8%!  WHY AT THIS RATE, IT'LL BE UP TO 689% IN A
WEEK AND A HALF!  Oh, no, wait:

"Source 3 stats are from this domain (www.upsdell.com): because of its
special audience, its stats apply to a narrow segment of the
population."

Looks like the most reliable number there is 0.85% today.  A far cry
from LaGgy's mystical 3%, no?

In the interest of accurate statistics, we need a random sampling...
AH!  Here we go, "counter.com", that sounds pretty random:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/February/browser.php

Oof, that one says 0%!  Lemme get that scientific calculator out here...
ooof, less than 0.8%.  But that's just this month, let's check out last
month...

Oh man, STILL 0%!  Well, let's get a little more accurate this time:
...carry the one...reciprocal...smiley face...  here we go: oh God. 
Less than 0.73%.

Well, growth rate!  Yeah, what's that looking like, let's go back a
year!  Oh dear, less than 0.28%.  So it's still buried in the noise
after all these years.  But if we apply Dr. LaGgy's Exponential Growth
Hormone Statistics, let's see:

0.73/0.28 ~= 2.6x more users per year, so in one year we'll have... oh,
only 1.8% market share.

But in 2004 Mozilla will have... ah, yeah, 4.9% market share.

Well yeah but come 2005 Mozilla will really start to take off with...
well, 12.8%, that's getting there.  Multiplicatively.

And by 2006, what, ten years after Mozilla's inception, Mozilla will
have a full ONE THIRD OF THE MARKET  Of course the internet will
have been replaced by implants or something by then, BUT STILL!!!  IT'S
A PYRRHIC VICTORY!!!

Well, it will be, in 2007, when Mozilla FINALLY breaks the 50% market
share mark.

Assuming multiplicative growth, and no motion by Microsoft.

Hold your breath at your own peril.

Company Merger

2002-02-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Title: eNewsletter 2
		YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON.  IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.	IImportant Announcement from J.C. Morris & Company	For the past few years, our customers have enjoyed the ability to purchase computers and related products from manufacturers like Sony, Apple, IBM, Toshiba and Compaq at prices below wholesale.Now, J.C. Morris & Company has teamed up with an additional distributor, Allied Interactive Micro-Systems, a company that specializes in the world-wide distribution of computer hardware, software and electronics, from manufacturers like Bose, Pioneer and Canon.Heres your chance to get to know us, and from now until February 10, 2002 if you visit us on-line or in person and make a purchase, we will give you an additional 25% off our current price.  This is our way of saying thank you for taking the time to visit our company.Sincerely,Jim MorrisVice PresidentJ.C. Morris & CompanyCome visit us today!		Apple iMac$899.95Visit our Company on-line!			Tower Place Center Suite 1800, 3340 Peachtree Road NEAtlanta, GA 303261-800-845-6215			  
Click here to unsubscribe from our mailing list.  Or reply to this message with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

M 0.9.8 Net installer fails -- Linux

2002-02-04 Thread Minko Markov


Hi,

The Net installer fails soon after it starts downloading the *xpi
files.   It downloads approx. 750KB and the installation process
dies with core dump (Linux). A message flashes for a moment,
saying something like "Missing files" or so.

The Full installer worked OK.

--
Minko

Default paper size

2002-02-04 Thread user


Hello,

is there a way to set the default paper size to a4? Mozilla doesn't 
remember a thing about the paper size.

Thanx

Christoph

Moz 0.9.8 completely fails for me

2002-02-04 Thread Chuck Messenger


I just tried installing 0.9.8 on my Win2k machine -- over 0.9.7.  When 
it ran 0.9.8 for the first time, it put up a blank (all gray) window, 
covering the entire screen.  I tried starting it a few times, with the 
same result.  I tried rebooting and starting -- same result.  I then 
tried starting "mozilla -P chuck" to bypass the profile-selection 
screen.  This time, it crashed -- invalid memory access.

I've never had any problems with previous Moz builds.  I tried a recent 
nightly -- same problems.  I then re-installed 0.9.7, and things are 
back to normal.

Just a data point from someone out in the field...


 - Chuck

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
> Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

Ihighly doubt that it works on Opera. I highly doubt that it would ever 
work on Opera. Those great guys from Norway working on Opera still 
didn't get around to implement full DOM support.

>> again. The site used an old, improper version of the script.

> "Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's "improper" 
> about that?

No need to explain it the 234345th time.

>> The new script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

> Right, with special treatment, your web site too can be rendered by 
> Mozilla!  0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

3%.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Even the code for that sweet AIM client?

No. Nor do I contribute to that. Nor do I want to - it still doesn't 
have Message History, afaik.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mozilla performance:Broadband vs. Dailup

2002-02-04 Thread Travis Crump

I think it has more to do with the speed of the computer.  Six months 
ago, I tried Mozilla on my old computer(166MHz, 32MB ram), and it was 
unusable to the point where even if there was a 100% performance 
improvement since then I think it would still be unusably slow(though I 
haven't tried it).  Then I got a new computer(1.2GHz[Athlon], 384MB 
ram), and I really can't imagine a noticeable performance improvement to 
be possible for my browsing style...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have read/heard amny comments as to Mozilla's performance. Many people 
> claim Mozilla is very slow. I know that DHTML is slow, but other than 
> that I find Mozilla reasonably fast. But then I am connected to the 
> internet by a broadband cable connection.
> 
> My question is this: Does Mozilla have a much poorer level of 
> performance on a dialup connection when compared to other browser (also 
> using dialup)? Is this why people say Mozilla is slow because of how 
> poorly it handles a dialup connection? Is it that Mozilla is better at 
> handling a broadband (vs dialup) connection when it is compare to other 
> browsers (using broadband)?
> 
> I don't find Mozilla to be as slow as some claim it is. Is this because 
> the majority of people who claim Mozilla is slower than other browsers 
> are on a dialup?
>

Mozilla performance:Broadband vs. Dailup

2002-02-04 Thread pbergsagel


I have read/heard amny comments as to Mozilla's performance. Many people 
claim Mozilla is very slow. I know that DHTML is slow, but other than 
that I find Mozilla reasonably fast. But then I am connected to the 
internet by a broadband cable connection.

My question is this: Does Mozilla have a much poorer level of 
performance on a dialup connection when compared to other browser (also 
using dialup)? Is this why people say Mozilla is slow because of how 
poorly it handles a dialup connection? Is it that Mozilla is better at 
handling a broadband (vs dialup) connection when it is compare to other 
browsers (using broadband)?

I don't find Mozilla to be as slow as some claim it is. Is this because 
the majority of people who claim Mozilla is slower than other browsers 
are on a dialup?

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Jason Johnston


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed 
> Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows 
> 3.0% market share.  

Would you mind posting a link to that website here?  I'd much appreciate 
it.  Thanks.
--J

Title: eNewsletter 2
YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. IImportant Announcement from J.C. Morris & Company For the past few years, our customers have enjoyed the ability to purchase computers and related products from manufacturers like Sony, Apple, IBM, Toshiba and Compaq at prices below wholesale. J.C. Morris & Company has been able to accomplish this because of our direct relationship with distributors that use our Advertising & Marketing Services.Now, J.C. Morris & Company has teamed up with and additional distributor, Allied Interactive Micro-Systems, a company that specializes in the world-wide distribution of computer hardware, software and electronics, from manufacturers like Bose, Pioneer and Canon.Heres your chance to get to know us, and from now until February 8, 2002 if you visit us on-line or in person and would like to make a purchase, we will give you an additional 30% off our current selling price.This is our way of saying thank you for taking the time to visit our company.Should you have any questions please feel free to call us at 1-800-845-6215 or direct at 404-521-3624. If you would like to be remove from our mailing list just click on the link below. Sincerely,Jim MorrisVice PresidentJ.C. Morris & CompanyCome visit us today! Apple iMac$1099.00Visit our Company on-line! Tower Place Center Suite 1800, 3340 Peachtree Road NEAtlanta, GA 303261-888-567-2444
Click here to unsubscribe from our mailing list. Or reply to this message with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

>> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are
>> probably not even true) in each and every of your posts?
>> 
> 
> It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back
> down to earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative
> "mind" share - it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an
> image helped tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a
> tough row to hoe, and crying about poorly-written websites and
> deluding yourself into thinking people will tolerate something
> sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just because it has a commie star on it and
> "isn't M$" is nothing but a self-defeating fantasy.

Actually it's a complete lie by JTK.  He quoted a website that showed 
Mozilla had .75% market share.  Last I checked, that same site shows 
3.0% market share.  JTK just refuses to acknowledge that Mozilla and 
it's derivitives are actually gaining market share.  Get with the 
program JTK.  Are you going to cling to this .75% like you cling to the 
"Hyatt said Mozilla is 4 times slower than IE" thing?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr.
> LaG: IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND
> DOES NOT MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

Yes, it is 2002.  Web pages are code.  Right click, view source.  See 
that pretty text?  It's code.  True, writing HTML by hand doesn't make 
you a programmer, it makes you a web designer.  I'm all for programs to 
write code for you.  However, they have to produce complient code.  How 
about I give you a C++ program that you type what you want to display, 
it makes some random formatting tags I made up and says "Hi, here's your 
web page".  I'll just blame all browsers for not supporting JML (Jim's 
Markup Language).  I don't understand why someone given the choice 
between making a site so only 1 browser can use it, or making a site so 
that *any* browser can use it, you take option 1.  But hey, I'm arguing 
with someone who doesn't think web pages even need valid markup, so 
what's the point of this discussion?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

2002-02-04 Thread Bundy


"Flo Ledermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...

http://www.hitboxcentral.com/cgi-bin/hbcntrl.cgi?c=/statmarket/archive/smf_1
_101701&ct=statmarket

SAN DIEGO, CA - Oct. 17, 2001) WebSideStory, Inc. (www.websidestory.com),
the world's leading provider of outsourced e-business intelligence services,
today reported the four countries with the largest Netscape user
populations. As of October 15, 2001, Germany heads the list with a browser
usage share of 20.26 percent, compared to the global average of 13.17
percent, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket (www.statmarket.com), a Web
site design and software optimization service and a leading source for data
on global Internet user trends. StatMarket publishes information gathered
from more than 50 million Internet users a day to more than 125,000 sites
worldwide using WebSideStory's HitBox® Enterprise (www.hitboxenterprise.com)
and other HitBox e-business intelligence services. Switzerland was next on
the list with 18.77 percent, followed by Canada (17.25 percent), and the
United States (15.79 percent), StatMarket reported. Browser usage share is
the percentage of daily Internet users worldwide that access the Internet
through a particular browser.
"Compared with the global average of Netscape users, these countries are a
very strong market for Netscape," said Geoff Johnston, vice president of
product marketing for StatMarket. "In some countries, the percentage of
Netscape users is so small that there is virtually no market share to
support. The data makes it very clear that when it comes to making browser
support decisions internationally, one size does not fit all."

As of October 15, 2001:


  Country Netscape Usage Percentage

  Germany 20.26 %

  Switzerland 18.77 %

  Canada 17.25 %

  U.S. 15.79 %

  Global Usage Share 13.17 %



Hitbox also includes Opera spoofing as Mozilla as being netscape users.




begin 666 clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`+ `!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Re: Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)


JTK wrote:
> Why, jesus_x posts from alltel.net!  H

Why yes I do. Without going through everyone else's posts, I can only assume
someone else does too. They're a fairly large telco, and they bought out the
Navex internet service in the midwest recently, so I'm sure there's more than
one Alltel customer here.

--
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!

Christian Biesinger wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> 0.75% more people will be able to view your site!
> 
> 
> Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably 
> not even true) in each and every of your posts?
> 

It is true, and I mention it often to try to knock you guys back down to 
earth: Mozilla has no market share, and actually negative "mind" share - 
it's the laughingstock of the computing world, an image helped 
tremendously by the Netscape 6.0 freakshow.  You got a tough row to hoe, 
and crying about poorly-written websites and deluding yourself into 
thinking people will tolerate something sub-IE and sub-NC4.7x just 
because it has a commie star on it and "isn't M$" is nothing but a 
self-defeating fantasy.

Are You Paying Too Much for Life Insurance? PMKJMLW

2002-02-04 Thread TermQuotes

  Term Quotes    Life Insurance Companies    Since 1996, term life insurance rates have been reduced by as much as 70%40 year old male - $250,000 - 10 year level termAs low as $10.45 per month!At TermQuotes Life Insurance Companies of America, we will survey the top life insurance companies for you and provide you with the best rates available. The quote is free. There is no obligation to buy. Compare the rates and see for yourself. Fill out this quick form below for further information.Results of computer survey 07-09-01Sample Annual Premiums* 10 Year Level Premium Term Rates *Age$250,000$500,000$1,000,00035$115$175$30545$210$375$67055$500$935$1,37065$1,305$2,550$4,92070$2,265$4,480$7,510*Above rates guaranteed to remain level for 10 yearsRates based on male preferred class 1 non-smoker Policies are guaranteed renewable to age 95Policies with 15, 20, 25, and 30 year level premiums also availableAttention All Smokers,you may qualify for special reduced smoker rates!Universal Life, Second-to-Die and Estate Planning products also provided.Submit This Form for a Free Term Insurance Quote!Name Insured:  Amount of Coverage:    $250,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000$1,000,000Date of Birth: Month  010203040506070809101112  Day  01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 Year Sex:  Male  Female Height:  FT in Weight:  lbs.Occupation:  xxxHave You Ever Had:High Blood Pressure  Yes  No Heart Attack or Stroke  Yes  No Cancer  Yes  No Diabetes  Yes  No Mother, Father, Sister, Brother Diagnosed or Died of Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease Before Age 60  Yes  No Have You  Smoked Within the Last 12 Months  Yes  No xxxPerson Completing Request:  Mailing Address:   City:  State  Zip Daytime Phone:  Evening Phone:   Email Address:   Best time to contact:  Morning After noon Evening Weekend When you click submit it may start your spell check, so please click "Ignore..." if it does.  YOUR INTERNET ADVERTISING CopyrightÿA92000-2001 . All Rights ReservedThis could be your ad!Email Us with your name and a good phone number to reach you. If you think, that you will not benefit from this correspondence, please reply with ÿ93remove keyÿ94 as the subject matter.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> No.  But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi?

No, it's in big 12 point text in my news reader. for quite a long time I never
understood why it was there, since you were ostensibly posting from home. Most
ISPs don't add anything to newspost headers, so I figured it was either the
default of your newsreader (unlikely) or the Mozilla news server is adding that.
Do you post to news.mozilla.org or to secnews.netscape.com?

> > Every single one says "Organization:
> > Another Netscape Collabra Server User"
> Huh, wonder who put that there.

Most likely the Collabra server your ISP uses for Usenet, or the secure news
server if you post to that server directly.

--
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!


JTK wrote:
> So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do
> more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work
> with Opera.

No, it dosen't work at all. The Updated (standard) script WOULD work on Opera,
but their DOM support is worse than IE's. So it doesn't, and won't work on
Opera.

--
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!

2002-02-04 Thread Jason Johnston

JTK wrote:
>
> 
> So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
> more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
> with Opera.
> 

Wrong.  His choices are:

1) Do nothing.  It will continue to work on MSIE and Netscape 4, but 
nothing else present or future.

2) Update the script to make use of the W3C Standards.  It will continue 
to work in MSIE and Netscape 4, _plus_ work in Mozilla _and_ any other 
future browser that implements the W3C Standards, with no additional 
effort.  This will include Opera once they get their DOM support up to par.

So it's either do no work and get no gain, or do a little work and gain 
support of any future compliant browser.  That's the whole point of the 
standards: write once, run anywhere.  It's the direction everyone's 
heading; Mozilla is just the first to get there.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

barney wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
>>>
>>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
>>Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
> would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.
> 
> 

So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
with Opera.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread user

barney wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>>Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
>>>
>>Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
>>Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
> would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.
> 
> 

So now the *updated* one breaks Opera.  So the guy's gotta choose: do 
more work to make it work with Mozilla, or do more work to make it work 
with Opera.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Pratik wrote:

[snip]

>>> Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
>>> such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be 
>>> beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Beneficial to whom?
> 
> 
> To the webmasters so that they don't have to deal with emails saying 
> "But your site doesn't work correctly in Netscape/Mozilla." Such emails 
>  will only increase over time.
> 

Yeah, well I guess there's nowhere to go but up from zero.  Come on.

> Pratik.
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


jesus X wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>>Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User
>>
> 
> Have you ever looked at your headers?

No.  But it appears you have taken quite a close look, huh rabbi?

> Every single one says "Organization:
> Another Netscape Collabra Server User"
>

Huh, wonder who put that there.

> --
> 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: Anchor tags in NS 4

2002-02-04 Thread Ric Gates

"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:

> The reply was meant for any to read who are post Communicator questions
> on Moz newsgroup.
>
> IF I offended you by posting in wrong portion of the thread my
> appologies. :-(

I hate cross posts myself and usually remove them, I saw they were all netscape but 
still
I should've removed mozilla.
No need to reply as I probably won't see it.

--
| Later.
| Ric.
|

Re: Automatic favicon.ico requests

2002-02-04 Thread Ben Tremblay


Blake Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
[somebody challenged, "How do you know people don't like favicons?"
> > Yet you know they do?
> I dunno about him. I know they do (the feature was requested by users).
> Blake
A bit of history - 
Clearest RFE:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82130
Hey,
this one has been bothering me for a while.
Konqueror for Linux does support those nifty ca. 16x16 icons some
pages include,
and it shows them in the taskbar, in the URL bar and in other places.
Why can't
mozilla? 

What seems to me the original:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32087
>From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; N; WinNT4.0; en-US; m14)
BuildID:231317
like IE5 mozilla shows icons in the location bar. Why not have this be
a user
defined icon like is possible in ie5. and maybe also make the location
bar a
list like object where you can choose previous locations

Bug count at present: 28

Status:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120949
"I believe favicons should be disabled for 1.0.  The open issues with
them have grown large enough that 2 milestones (when I have to devote
my time to many more important features like
perf/stability/XUL1.0/XBL1.0) won't cut it.

This bug is about turning the pref off for favicons in Mozilla.  Post
1.0, we
can revisit the favicons problem."

Salient point IMHO: If "layers" was dumped in the name of compliance,
on what basis was "favicons" implemented?

hfx_ben

--
Ask not for what the code can do for you but, rather,
yada yada yada yada yada

Jesus_X == JTK? (was: Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!)


Phil Anderton wrote:
> "JTK" wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> NNTP-Posting-Host: r-185.181.alltel.net
> 
> Now, which regular contributor here posts from alltel.net? Will He step 
> forward and confess?
> 

Why, jesus_x posts from alltel.net!  H

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Simon P. Lucy

On 04/02/2002 at 18:28 JTK wrote:

>DeMoN LaG wrote:

>>  A proprietary Netscape 
>> 4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
>> includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.
>> The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however,

>> should work with the W3C complient one.
>
>No, Mozilla should render all existing web pages as well or better than 
>all existing web browsers.  If that means it has to know what a 
>"document.all" is, tough noogs.

Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Microsoft is having such
a hard time supporting CSS over and above CSS1.  Its also non-trivial to
support two different object models of a document.  It would be slightly
easier to support layers but the decision was taken not to support it
(which doesn't mean someone couldn't support it if they feel like coding
it), so that the proprietary DOM wouldn't be perpetuated.  

If you want Mozilla to have a particular performance aim then I'd agree
that it should render all existing valid documents, where valid is the set
of documents conforming to W3C.

>
>>  If people didn't do dumb things 
>> like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
>> to do my own code",
>
>God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr. LaG: 
>IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND DOES NOT 
>MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

A great many WYSIWYG tools create invalid HTML code, I wouldn't blame the
users for that I would blame the tool developers.  Though, software in
general might be of a much higher quality of some of those writing it had
had the experience of using punch card.

>
>> you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers
>
>No Ace, just Mozilla.

Try pointing IE 2 and 3 at a great many pages, try getting Opera to run
some Javascript.  Given the random quality of so many web pages its not
surprising so many fail for people with a variety of browsers.

S

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3C5F213A.6070405
@odi.BLOCKSPAM.ch, on 04 Feb 2002:

> chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase.
> On the other hand there is another really interesting chart:

No.  Bugs do not increase.  Bug *REPORTS* increase.  If something major 
breaks, like say...  Viewing a major web site like Google, likely *lots* 
of people will notice.  More people using the browser, more people see 
the problem, more people rush and file bug reports.  They are all 
duplicates, and there is only *one* "bug".  But now instead of a bug 
report, you have 30 bug reports.  How many bugs?  1.  How many reports 
(and thus bugzilla entries)?  30.  See how this works now?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Simon P. Lucy

On 04/02/2002 at 22:02 Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

>JTK wrote:
>
>> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>> can view their websites properly.
>
>Internet Explorer and Netscape 4 doesn't support the same DOMs either. 
>The site you mentioned in your hover tips bug posting detects which 
>browser you are using, and sends IE-only code to IE and NS4-only code to 
>NS4. The W3C DOM, which Mozilla supports, is also supported by Internet 
>Explorer. So Mozilla and IE does in fact support the same DOM, but the 
>site you visited actively detected Mozilla and prevented it from showing 
>what you call the "hover tips".

Actually it mis-identified the browser as being Netscape and assumes that
any browser so identified supports the same DOM as 4.x  That the
proprietary features supported by Netscape were flagged as 'to be removed'
some 4 years or so ago doesn't seem to have permeated many sites.

But then the amount of bit rot accumulating in web sites is directly
proportional to the amount of rot talked about them.  

S

>
>-- 
>Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh så er spørgsmålet dumt.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Thank you all for this very enlighting discussion.

I read most of the postings and sometimes had to laught out real loud 
because they were too hilarious... There were many postings that shared 
part of my views and others that didn't. That indicates that at least I 
am not completely absurd. I know that there are many good coders and 
there are many bad ones too. But I believe that the major part of the 
Mozilla Community belongs to the first group. Be good. Thanks!

see you somewhere around 1.0

in awe Ortwin Glück

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> on 04 Feb 2002: 
> 
> 
>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same
>>DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore
>>unable to render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure
>>everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's
>>0.75% of the population can view their websites properly.
>>
> 
> "Same DOMs that all other web browser do"???  Um, dude, do you know what 
> a "DOM" is?

Document Object Model?

>  There are only 3 of them out there.

Only three?  And Mozilla can't handle a mere *three*?

>  A proprietary Netscape 
> 4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
> includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.
> The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however, 
> should work with the W3C complient one.

No, Mozilla should render all existing web pages as well or better than 
all existing web browsers.  If that means it has to know what a 
"document.all" is, tough noogs.

>  If people didn't do dumb things 
> like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
> to do my own code",

God.  I suppose you want me to code on punch cards too, huh?  Mr. LaG: 
IT'S 2002.  WEB PAGES ARE NOT "CODE".  WRITING HTML BY HAND DOES NOT 
MAKE YOU A "PROGRAMMER".

> you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers

No Ace, just Mozilla.

Re: Talkback.exe taking 100% of CPU?

2002-02-04 Thread Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.


The Company is called FullCircle that does Talkback.

Travis Crump wrote:
> 
> I reported a bug on this once and was told that talkback is a tool that
> isn't being developed by Mozilla so this will never be fixed.
> 
> David Gerard wrote:
> > When talkback.exe is trying to send a talkback, it takes 100% of the CPU
> > all the time it's trying to communicate with the server. Should it be doing
> > this?
> >
> > Also, I'm having trouble contacting the talkback servers again. Where is
> > the data stored? Is there some way to email it in?
> >
> >
> >

-- 
---
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]

Re: Anchor tags in NS 4

2002-02-04 Thread Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.


The reply was meant for any to read who are post Communicator questions
on Moz newsgroup.

IF I offended you by posting in wrong portion of the thread my
appologies. :-(

Ric Gates wrote:
> 
> So why are you replying to me, I didn't start the thread.
> Reply to the one that started the thread, as there is nothing wrong with my reply.
> 
> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." wrote:
> 
> > Please go to :
> >  for Mac Communicator
> > general Questions
> >  for windows
> > Communicator General Questions
> >  for Unix
> > Communicator General Questions
> >  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:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> Anchor test
> > > > > >>   
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > put the complete url here .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> http://all the url/and page.html#test">link to anchor
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >>   
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK there is no need to put the complete URL, especially if the anchor is
> > > > > on the same page.
> > > > >
> > > > > bla bla bla
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Top of page
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > >>   
> > > > is called an "empty anchor".  There is no text or anything else
> > > > from the page between the  part and the  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   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]
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> | 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]

Re: browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

2002-02-04 Thread Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.

Flo Ledermann wrote:

cut
> (i'm not sure, but i guess netscape 6.x is counted as netscape)
> 
> of course these are all people in the academic system, and not
> representative for the general public. (although probably the kind of
> people most of the readers of this ng are surrounded with)
-cut--

I believe that its more likely they are talking about Communicator not Netscape6.

After being burned by the so called First final version of 6 which
should have been at least a PR1 and really should have been a Alpha 1
version. I doubt seriously whether Netscape6 leaves fond memories.

I surf several USENET newsgroups, and from what I've been reading; they
are going back to Communicator, because of the many features turned off
or missing in Netscape 6, the slow operation starting up, and many  web
pages because they don't comply to W3C standards don't do well. There
several post a day on how to get there addressbook and bookmarks back so
that they can go back to Communicator.

-- 
---
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]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris

(Sorry for not quoting that lengthy but very useful one.)
I agree with you that it is very difficult to manage bug reporting in a
way so that duplicates can be mostly avoided (as is with every system
that processes mostly unstructured text entered by humans). Bugzilla
certainly lacks a bit of functionality to achive that. I also do realize
that developers put their reminders into bugzilla too and that
"techincal" bug reports exist. But what I want to point out is that not
individual figures matters but rather an impression, an overall feeling
for the state of the project. And this is what disquiets me sometimes.
It doesn't really matter what options/ parameters you choose for the bug
chart. It always shows the same overall picture: bugs increase.
On the other hand there is another really interesting chart:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?product=Browser&output=show_chart&datasets=RESOLVED%3A&links=1&banner=1

We can see now that you guys are not so slow at fixing bug as I thought
originally. You fixed about 18'000 in the past half year already! Man,
that is the hell of a lot! In this light the formerly posted figures may
seem not so bad anymore.

Beeing euphoric about developing the world's coolest, fastest, most
reliable etc. best browser is ok. I mean you guys have done really good
work so far (and some horrible as well of course). But do not lose the
scope for details. All the small things that do not work correctly and
behave strangely are more annoying to any user than a missing feature! I
want to make you to set your priorities right.

Ortwin Glück

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:

> I wonder if a bus load of cheerleaders are going 
> to bust into my house right now and say they need someplace to sleep for 
> the night now...


Send them here. Plenty of space... :-)

SCNR

Ortwin

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

2002-02-04 Thread David Gerard


On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:07:08 GMT,
Jim Power <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

:I would contend that this is more than perception.  I would rather
:have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even
:if it is overall slower.  I can get an idea of what I'm looking at,
:visually scan for what interests me, and then start reading.  If I
:wait ten seconds with my hands poised over the keys, only to discover
:I need to click through and the page is bogus, it just adds
:frustration.
:Another way of putting this: even if IE takes longer to completely
:render the page, I can USE the page faster under IE than Mozilla.


Thing is, Mozilla generally works that way - drawing what it can as it can,
with a few reflows as needed.

The trick IE does is (I think - I welcome correction from the more
observant) to draw the browser window ASAP, then the assorted widgets, then
(eventually) the content of the page. So it looks like it's *started* doing
something much sooner, even if it takes longer to finish.

I certainly wouldn't call it a high priority before 1.0 - we're talking
about eye candy here. And the lots of little 1% and 2% gains in real
performance in Mozilla are adding up very nicely as we go. But someone with
too much time on their hands might well want to play with people's
perceptions in this manner later.


-- 
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/  http://www.rocknerd.org/
"Some days violence is just a nice quick solution to a problem that would need
thought, planning and actual work to do justice to."  (Wayne Pascoe)

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:

> And if you want it all, use IE.


On Linux?

And it's quite slow too. Mozilla feels more responsive on my machine 
than IE does. IE sortof "hangs" the machine for seconds sometimes when 
you click on a link. That is so annoying I tell you... but lets talk 
about Moz.

Ortwin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> 0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

Say, is there any reason that you mention the 0.75% (that are probably 
not even true) in each and every of your posts?

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> 
>> Because it's not proper W3C DOM.
> 
> Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
> Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

No, not on Opera.  If Opera's DOM support was better, the updated script
would undoubtedly work, but it doesn't.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> the QNX version is version 5.something,
> 
> 
> Mozilla run on QNX?

To my knowledge, it does.

> No Mac version?

I'm sorry for forgetting it. However, you can either get an old, but 
final version (5.0) for MacOS <= 9.x, or a beta of an old version for 
MacOS X (also 5.0).

> Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

I replied to a post stating that "Opera seems to do fine trying to run 
their browsers for many OS's"

"seems to do fine" is way exaggerated.

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

DeMoN LaG wrote:
> For a browser that isn't even 
> marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies

Well, alas it is.
Bug reports are closed because developers think that either a feature is 
"too geeky". Alternatively, developers close bug reports because they 
rather annoy developers than end users.

Sigh. It's always a problem if a product should please everybody, it 
ends up pleasing nobody...

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Content Type / Helper Applications


Christopher Walk wrote:
> Content Type Header: "text/plain"
> Content Disposition Header: "Attachment; filename=foo.txt"

> I'd like the browser to prompt the user to save the file to disk in all 
> cases.  Does anyone have a suggestion as to how I can accomplish this?

Couldn't you send it as application/octet-stream instead of text/plain, 
then?

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  -- Benjamin Franklin

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Chris Hoess


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
>> 
>>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>>>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>>>render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>>>willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>>>can view their websites properly.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
>> vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
>> trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...
> 
> Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.
> 

You must have been a real trip, selling document.layers in 1996.  "If 
Netscape can render it, you're pretty much set."

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> 
> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.
> 
> 

If you spent any time in the c.i.w.a newsgroups, you'd find that the
trend towards standards compliancy is spreading rapidly.  Generic,
standard code is the only real future on the web.  You're living in the
past.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 05:11 PM, JTK wrote:
> Pratik wrote:
> 
>>On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
>>>NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
>>>named):
>>>
>>>"Dear Sirs,
>>>Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
>>>0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money 
>>>redoing it so that my defective browser can render it properly."
>>>
>>
>>Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
>>such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.
>>
>>
> 
> Beneficial to whom?

To the webmasters so that they don't have to deal with emails saying 
"But your site doesn't work correctly in Netscape/Mozilla." Such emails 
  will only increase over time.

Pratik.

Re: Moral high ground?


JTK wrote:
> They have a huge market share.  So now what do they do rabbi?  Yep, jack
> up the price to whatever the suckers will bear, and pump ads at them to
> boot.

> Yep, not even the people that pay for it.

It's their network, they can do whatever they want with it.

--
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!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> "Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's
> "improper" about that?
> 

Knives work fine getting stuck out of the toaster.  Since they work 
fine, it's "proper" to stick the knife in the toaster than, isn't it?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> 
> Huh, now I'm not Another Netscape Collabra Server User

Have you ever looked at your headers? Every single one says "Organization:
Another Netscape Collabra Server User"

--
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!

JTK wrote:
> AH!  So *THE LORD* is the one behind that article!  Wonderful!  Why no
> attribution, or did I just miss it? 

You just missed it. It's at the top.

> So you mean to say that:
> N_bugs_in_bugzilla = A * N_registered_bugzilla_users
> for some suitable A?

A being the number of valid bugs on ALL products, plus dupes, INVALIDs, and
RFEs, yes. The total number will be larger in proportion to the total number of
bug reporters. Especially on bug that are high profile. 2 years ago, you could
expect to see maybe 20 to 30 dupes of a high profile bug, while today, it's easy
to see up to a hundred dupes of a high profile bug. That will drive up the total
number of bug reports, while the number of VALID bugs stays the same. Same thing
with RFEs.

> All
> it does then is track entries made by registered users, which may in
> fact be bugs in Mozilla, or bugs in other products, or recipies, or
> porn, or maybe they're just using it as a substitute for NNTP or email,
> whatever.

As a matter of fact, yes. It does more than that, there ar attachment features,
and report querrying functions, etc. but the user can use the system in ways it
was not intended. Way way back, there were even a couple of bugs that were there
just to remind someone to do something. I remember one guy entered a bug so he'd
remember to bring something with him to work from his car. Some bugs are nothing
more than metabugs, they contain a list of related bugs (tracking is the
component they're under). Some bugs are for Mozilla, some are for Bugzilla, some
are for mozilla.org, etc. that's what the Product entry is for.

> BTW: I know you won't take this for what it's worth, but I read both
> articles in their entirety.  While yours is written better, his is more
> factually correct and less biased.

Actually, it's not. I certainly am biased, and make no apologies for it, but his
is NOT more factually based.

--
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!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
04 Feb 2002:

> Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
> suffer this misery!
> 

*cough* 3.0%  Still lying about numbers, are we?  Afraid of the 
quadrupled market share?

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 
04 Feb 2002:

> Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.
> 

For another 6 or 8 months

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 04 Feb 2002: 

> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same
> DOMs that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore
> unable to render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure
> everybody will be willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's
> 0.75% of the population can view their websites properly.

"Same DOMs that all other web browser do"???  Um, dude, do you know what 
a "DOM" is?  There are only 3 of them out there.  A proprietary Netscape 
4.x DOM that includes Document.layers, a proprietary IE DOM that 
includes document.all, and a W3C complient one that Mozilla implements.  
The problem is NONE of the browser support all 3.  All of them, however, 
should work with the W3C complient one.  If people didn't do dumb things 
like go "I'm lazy, I'll just use Frontpage and not bother learning how 
to do my own code", you get crappy pages that don't work in some browers

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread barney

JTK wrote:
> 
> And if you want it all, use IE.

Not until they get their CSS support up to at least Opera's level.  I'm
pretty tired of using hacks to get around IE bugs.  In this respect, IE
is holding me back.  IE6 isn't much of an improvement.  It still barely
supports core CSS1.  Maybe IE7 will support full CSS2, but I expect
Opera and mozilla will both have full CSS3 support by then. ;)

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Pratik wrote:
> On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:
> 
> 
>> Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
>> NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
>> named):
>>
>> "Dear Sirs,
>> Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
>> 0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money 
>> redoing it so that my defective browser can render it properly."
> 
> 
> Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
> such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.
> 

Beneficial to whom?

> Pratik.
> 
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
>>That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
>>that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
>>render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
>>willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
>>can view their websites properly.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
> vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
> trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...

Unless IE can render it.  Then you're pretty much set.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>> CSS and DOM support.
>>
> 
>> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on 
>> Mozilla.
> 
> 
> Because it's not proper W3C DOM.

Proper schmopper, it works on IE, NC4.7x, Opera (probably), but not on 
Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.  Not on Mozilla.

 > And we discussed that already again and
> again. The site used an old, improper version of the script.

"Improper"?  Why?  It works fine on IE and NC4.7x.  What's "improper" 
about that?

> The new 
> script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

Right, with special treatment, your web site too can be rendered by 
Mozilla!  0.75% more people will be able to view your site!

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
>>> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
>>> Politburo.
>>
> 
>> Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
>> the profit" "Open Source" model too?
> 
> 
> I do work for Mozilla, and I get profit too: I don't pay for it, and yet 
> I may use it.
> 

Even the code for that sweet AIM client?

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 03:34 PM, JTK wrote:

> Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
> NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
> named):
> 
> "Dear Sirs,
> Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
> 0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money redoing 
> it so that my defective browser can render it properly."

Yes. A mail similar but written in a much better way would be sent to 
such webmasters. In the long run, updating their code would be beneficial.

Pratik.

Re: DHTML Performance in Moz0.9.8

2002-02-04 Thread Fabian Guisset


James Clash wrote:

> Fabian Guisset wrote:
> 
>> James Clash wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just tested many DHTML sites with the latest
>>> nightlies and experienced some major problems
>>> (hang, considerably slower, etc.)
>>>
>>> A search in bugzilla revealed the relating bug
>>> - http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117061
>>> Unfortunately this bug hasn't made it into
>>> Mozilla 0.9.8.
>>>
>>> I hope Stuart Parmenter (the assigned person) gets this
>>> fixed real soon ... so voting on this bug is appreciated!
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is not the only problem with DHTML performance, but there is work 
>> going on. See also bug 21762 for the tracking bug.
>>
>> -Fabian.
>>
> 
> Good to hear - but what I still don't unterstand is the fact that
> the regression has been reported on 2001-12-27 and although this 
> regression is having a great impact it hasn't been fixed for 0.9.8 ?!
> 

I am in part to blame for this, I haven't done what Brendan has asked me 
to do yet -- I plan to, soon enough.
rjesup's patch was apparently more an experimental workaround that 
nobody tested than a real patch. It's interesting that so many people 
care about that bug but nobody is able to test a patch.


> Also took a look at the tracking bu 21762 and also there people are
> concerned if this bug is also in the 0.9.8 release.
> 


Of course people are concerned that DHTML perf sucks, and so are we... 
it's just not easy to fix, as Sören pointed out.

Sorry for the vague answers and arguments, I can't do much better at 
this point

-Fabian.


> -- 
> James
>

Re: #1 Mozilla Problem - back and forwards

2002-02-04 Thread Jim Power

My $0.02:

I would contend that this is more than perception.  I would rather
have a page immediately show and then redraw a couple of times, even
if it is overall slower.  I can get an idea of what I'm looking at,
visually scan for what interests me, and then start reading.  If I
wait ten seconds with my hands poised over the keys, only to discover
I need to click through and the page is bogus, it just adds
frustration.

Another way of putting this: even if IE takes longer to completely
render the page, I can USE the page faster under IE than Mozilla.

-Jim

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:20:58 -0800, tradervik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>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!

2002-02-04 Thread Chris Hoess

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.
> 

Well, those interested in ensuring that their pages survive the 
vicissitudes of the browser market might take a crack at it. Putting your 
trust in a proprietary DOM is a dangerous thing...

-- 
Chris Hoess

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Jonas Jørgensen

JTK wrote:

> That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
> that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
> render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
> willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
> can view their websites properly.

Internet Explorer and Netscape 4 doesn't support the same DOMs either. 
The site you mentioned in your hover tips bug posting detects which 
browser you are using, and sends IE-only code to IE and NS4-only code to 
NS4. The W3C DOM, which Mozilla supports, is also supported by Internet 
Explorer. So Mozilla and IE does in fact support the same DOM, but the 
site you visited actively detected Mozilla and prevented it from showing 
what you call the "hover tips".

-- 
Hvis svaret er Anders Fogh så er spørgsmålet dumt.

Re: Where is Profile Manger

2002-02-04 Thread Jim Power

Mozilla also puts the Profile Manager shortcut in the start menu, as
Matt outlined below for Netscape.  I start from an icon in my taskbar,
so I never noticed this.  I haven't received any notification on my
bug report for better documentation.  Is documentation centralized
anywhere or is it just every module for themselves?

-Jim

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:35:13 -0800, Matt Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Start / Programs / Netscape 6.2 / Profile Manager also works
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


DeMoN LaG wrote:
> Fix your statistics.  3.0% last count.  Hmm, let's do some math with 
> that.  It was .75%, now it's 3.0%.  So between statistics takings, 
> Mozilla QUADRUPLED it's market share.  For a browser that isn't even 
> marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies, that's pretty 
> impressive.  Mathmatically, if this trend continues next time we see 
> updated numbers they will show Moz with 12% market share.  More than 
> likely the numbers won't quadruple again, but I bet you'll see Mozilla 
> and derivitives with > 15% of the market before next year

That would be cool,  but I'm not that optimistic.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
>> Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.

> Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our 
> PNG images!?!?!  Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
> suffer this misery!

So you know a better way for drop shadows and other nifty stuff which 
so-called web designers would love to be able to use?

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
04 Feb 2002: 

> Hehhehe, yeah, you keep tellin' yourself that, year after year, 
> milestone after milestone.  0.75% market share after 0.75% market
> share. 
> 
>>Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that it is and I
>>think 
>> most people involved agree.
>>
> 
> I wonder what the browser-using community thinks?  Oh, wait, no I
> don't, 0.75% pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Fix your statistics.  3.0% last count.  Hmm, let's do some math with 
that.  It was .75%, now it's 3.0%.  So between statistics takings, 
Mozilla QUADRUPLED it's market share.  For a browser that isn't even 
marketed towards anyone other than developers and techies, that's pretty 
impressive.  Mathmatically, if this trend continues next time we see 
updated numbers they will show Moz with 12% market share.  More than 
likely the numbers won't quadruple again, but I bet you'll see Mozilla 
and derivitives with > 15% of the market before next year

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> CSS and DOM support.

> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Because it's not proper W3C DOM. And we discussed that already again and 
again. The site used an old, improper version of the script. The new 
script does the job fine, on Mozilla too.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


"Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:gSp78.83089$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb
2002: 

> 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.

If Opera were like 3 times faster than Mozilla, I could see your point.  
But it's not.  On my systems, Mozilla is not perceptably slower than NC 
4.x or Opera (this is on Win 2k and Linux).  On Win 2k, Mozilla is not 
perceptably slower than IE.  There are some minor exceptions, stuff like 
DHTML performance, but those are being addressed.  Opera is a tiny bit 
faster, and has almost none of the features of Mozilla.  No themes.  
Nothing like Mozilla's mail/news client.  Composer, integrated IRC chat, 
Javascript and DOM debuggers, not to mention top of the line standards 
complience.  Opera is a good light browser.  Comparing it to Mozilla 
though is like saying one TV is better than another because it turns on 
faster, not including that one is a big screen with 5.1 surround sound 
and all the bells and whistles and the other is a 13" meant for hanging 
in the kitchen

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
>> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
>> Politburo.

> Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
> the profit" "Open Source" model too?

I do work for Mozilla, and I get profit too: I don't pay for it, and yet 
I may use it.

>> You forgot to mention Mac OS btw. And the QNX version is only somewhat 
>> a port of the Engine to the native QNX browser and not an own browser.

> Which, considering QNX is an embedded OS, is the most anybody would 
> want.

Not too certain there. I found the internal browser to be quite limited, 
even for an embedded one. What was its name again, I forgot. They oughta 
speed up their web site so I'll want to look again.

I tried out QNX several times for fun on a machine it was never intended 
for - a plain PC. Sound unsurprisingly did not work, because I have a 
stupid nobody-knows-it no-name sound card on that machine - there's no 
driver either for Linux. Networking worked fine though. And fast. It was 
an experience similar to BeOS. But anyways, this is OT.

> Does Mozilla run on QNX?

Yes. QNX guys are actively helping port Mozilla to QNX.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> And if you want it all, use IE.
> 
> 
> Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
> Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.
> 

Indeed, how has the world survived without 8-bit alpha channels on our 
PNG images!?!?!  Well at least 0.75% of the population doesn't have to 
suffer this misery!

Content Type / Helper Applications

2002-02-04 Thread Christopher Walk


All,

I'm having trouble getting NN 6.2 to respond as expected when the I've 
set the content type and disposition of the response as follows:

Content Type Header: "text/plain"
Content Disposition Header: "Attachment; filename=foo.txt"

I've configured "Preferences -> Navigator -> Helper Apps" to handle 
text/plain by prompting the user to save to disk; however, the text is 
being displayed in the browser.

I'd like the browser to prompt the user to save the file to disk in all 
cases.  Does anyone have a suggestion as to how I can accomplish this?

Thanks,
-Chris

Re: Shared Address Book Prob

2002-02-04 Thread CBFalconer


Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> 
> Alex Justo wrote:
> > I'm trying to get a department to share an address book. I finally
> > figured out how to store the address book in a server so that many users
> > can access it from a central location. Unfortunately when one user has
> > it open, nobody else can open it ! It seems that messenger locks the
> > file for excluvive access or something along those lines. Anyone knows
> > how to get around this ?? Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Is your question about Netscape Communicator 4.x? If it is, you're in he
> wrong newsgroup. snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator
> would be a better choice.

Look at the cross-posting list.  Mozilla is not really applicable,
but netscape.public.general certainly is.

-- 
Chuck F ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   (Remove "" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified)
   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (for spambots to harvest)

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Pratik wrote:
> On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Bundy 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and 
 Explorer? Just
 one please.

>>> CSS and DOM support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on 
>> Mozilla.
> 
> 
> As pointed out, that script had non standard code. The updated script 
> that conformed to the W3C standards worked perfectly with Mozilla.
> 

Yeah, fine, whatever, the non-updated script worked fine with both 
NC4.7x and IE.  Evangelism bug!  (Man could THAT have been more aptly 
named):

"Dear Sirs,
Your web site does not render properly on my web browser, which has 
0.75% market share.  Please spend considerable effort and money redoing 
it so that my defective browser can render it properly."

> Pratik.
> 
> 
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Feb 2002: 

> My God, it's like I stumbled into a funny farm here.  Mr. LaG, do
> you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that defects in
> software should not be fixed?  That software projects should simply
> be left to their own devices and given no direction nor management?
>  Now I know you're not a software professional, but my Lord, don't
> you have enough common sense to know that the only thing down that
> path is ruin? 
> 

There are people directing work.  Module owners, and 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  It's nice having it that way, because it's not a 
dictatorship with stuff like "Fix this problem now.  I don't care what 
happens for the good of the project, I want this one fixed cause it 
breaks my favorite site" (which we all know has 3 hits a month).  With 
an open source project with groups of people who guide the project, the 
likelyhood is that the entire browser will get better, instead of just 
things that appeal to the guy in charge.  

BTW, who said defects in software shouldn't be fixed?  If I said that, 
please do quote the relevant article number and piece of text for me.  
Otherwise, please don't put words in my mouth

-- 
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>> No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_.

> Numbers Kuklau.

That's my last name. I don't call you "K" either, unless you're the guy 
from Men In Black with exactly that name.

I can't and won't give you numbers (never trust statistics you didn't 
fake yourself, hmm?), but I'll tell you that I know a lot of people who 
switched over to Mozilla in the last year. If you want a good example, 
then just look at me.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


JTK wrote:
> And if you want it all, use IE.

Once you tell me how to use 8-bit Alpha channels on 24-bit PNG images? 
Come on, they had 7 years to implement it properly.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> 
>>Chris Hoess wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Bundy wrote:
>>>
>>>
Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
one please.

>>>CSS and DOM support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
>>Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.
>>
> 
> Which has what to do, again, with what I posted?

That was supposedly a DOM issue; Mozilla doesn't support the same DOMs 
that all other web browsers apparently do, and is therefore unable to 
render many of them properly.  Oh well, I'm sure everybody will be 
willing to rewrite their HTML so that Mozilla's 0.75% of the population 
can view their websites properly.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Pratik


On 02/04/2002 02:49 PM, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
> 
>>In article , Bundy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>>one please.
>>>
>>>
>>CSS and DOM support.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

As pointed out, that script had non standard code. The updated script 
that conformed to the W3C standards worked perfectly with Mozilla.

Pratik.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

JTK wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux
>> is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something,

> Since BeOS is defunct, this is an issue how?

They claim it works on BeOS. They don't really fulfill that claim.

>> the OS/2 version is a "public beta",

> OS/Who?  Come ON!

See above.

>> the QNX version is version 5.something,

> Mozilla run on QNX?

Yes. It's beta stage or so, but it does run. And I've seen at least one 
qnx engineer on bugzilla.

>> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).

> No Mac version?

Too, Chris forgot it. Needless to say: It's beta.

>> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.

> Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

Then obviously you didn't understand the point: They claim they run on 
many platforms. They don't really.

-- 
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

2002-02-04 Thread Chris Hoess


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK wrote:
> Chris Hoess wrote:
>> In article , Bundy wrote:
>> 
>>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>>one please.
>>>
>> 
>> CSS and DOM support.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
> Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Which has what to do, again, with what I posted?

-- 
Chris Hoess

Open for INSTANT ACCESS to Free Teen Twat

2002-02-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]







	
		
	
	
		
		
	
	
		
		
	




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

browser statistics - mozilla 10%!

2002-02-04 Thread Flo Ledermann


the university for technology in vienna/austria just released the 
results of an online-survey amongst all students, lecturers and office 
employees about the usage of its web-services. as part of the results, 
OS and browser statistics of all participants were released, which 
might be of interest to you:

university office employees (38 questionnaires returned)

Operating System used:
Windows 
100%
Linux 
0%
Apple Mac   0%
Solaris 
0%
Andere 
0%

Webbrowser used:
IE 
52%
Netscape 
42%
Mozilla 
3%
Opera 
0%
Lynx 
0%
Andere 
3%

university lecturers (225 questionnaires returned)

Operating System used:
Windows 
79%
Linux 
12%
Apple Mac   6%
Solaris 
1%
Andere 
3%

Webbrowser used:
IE 
35%
Netscape 
49%
Mozilla 
10%
Opera 
3%
Lynx 
1%
Andere 
1%

university students (1472 questionnaires returned)

Operating System used:
Windows 
85%
Linux 
13%
Apple Mac   2%
Solaris 
0%
Andere 
0%

Webbrowser used:
IE 
66%
Netscape 
14%
Mozilla 
10%
Opera 
7%
Lynx 
1%
Andere 
2%

(i'm not sure, but i guess netscape 6.x is counted as netscape)

of course these are all people in the academic system, and not 
representative for the general public. (although probably the kind of 
people most of the readers of this ng are surrounded with)

at least here in europe mozilla seems to be more of a mainstream 
platform than macintosh.

[ source: http://www.lzk.ac.at/befragung/auswertung/ ]

(sorry for the not totally accurate subject - i wanted you to read 
that post ;)

-- 
|-
| Flo Ledermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| "Capitalism would make sense if only the earth were flat."
|-
| http://www.mediavirus.org//f/0/
|-

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Bill Weinman wrote:
> "Bundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:...
> 
>>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.
>>
> 
>For what it is, Opera is an excellent product. It's small fast and
> simple. But there already is an Opera so there's no need for Mozilla
> to duplicate that effort.
> 

There's already an IE, it kicked Netscape's ass long ago, so why 
duplicate that effort?  Oh right, we like reinventing wheels 'round 
these here parts.

>Mozilla was designed by the community,

The little design work that went into it was done by AOL, not by any 
"community".

> and the community wanted a
> platform including browser/mail/news/chat/composer/etc.

Exactly like NC4.7x oddly enough.  Which is why five years later people 
are *still* using NC4.7x in preference to Mozilla.

> along with a
> mechanism for building other applications with xml/DOM.

Nobody in "the community" wanted that.  Apps?  hell, there aren't even 
more than a handful of *SKINS* around!

> When people
> finally realize just how powerful this thing is, I think the world
> will sit up and take notice.
>

Hehhehe, yeah, you keep tellin' yourself that, year after year, 
milestone after milestone.  0.75% market share after 0.75% market share.

>Personally, I'm glad it's being done the way that it is and I think
> most people involved agree.
>

I wonder what the browser-using community thinks?  Oh, wait, no I don't, 
0.75% pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

> --Bill
>

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!

Chris Hoess wrote:
> In article , Bundy wrote:
> 
>>Tell me one single area where Mozilla outperforms Opera and Explorer? Just
>>one please.
>>
> 
> CSS and DOM support.
> 
> 

Yeah, um, no, that "hover tips" thingy I pointed out works on 
Communicator and IE (and my money's on Opera as well), but not on Mozilla.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
> 
>> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).
> 
> 
> Symbian, formerly EPOX (sp?), is the OS PSION handhelds use. It's no 
> longer developed by PSION, but by what JTK would call the Symbian 
> Politburo.
> 

Why would I call it that?  Are they doing the "you do the work, we get 
the profit" "Open Source" model too?

>> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't express it that drastically, but the point remains.
> 
> You forgot to mention Mac OS btw. And the QNX version is only somewhat a 
> port of the Engine to the native QNX browser and not an own browser.
> 

Which, considering QNX is an embedded OS, is the most anybody would 
want.  Does Mozilla run on QNX?

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> 
>> Sören Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're claiming that the number of Mozilla users has increased over the
>> last year?
>>
> 
> No, I'm claiming that _it_has_increased_*a*_*lot*_.
> 

Numbers Kuklau.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Sören Kuklau wrote:
> Bundy wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> If you want speed, use Opera. If you want features of the future, use 
> Mozilla. As simple as that.
> 

And if you want it all, use IE.

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!


Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Bundy wrote:
> 
>> Opera seems to do fine trying to run their browsers for many OS's
> 
> 
> Um, many? They have one for Windows; their latest browser for Linux
> is only a "technology preview", the BeOS browser is version 3.something,

Since BeOS is defunct, this is an issue how?

> the OS/2 version is a "public beta",

OS/Who?  Come ON!

> the QNX version is version 
> 5.something,

Mozilla run on QNX?

> the same goes for the Symbian OS version (what _is_ that?).
>

No Mac version?

> --> Opera is, really, a windows-only browser.

Again, what other platform matters?  Right: None.

Re: It's a JTK Orgy! PLUS How can he do it with a schlong that big?

2002-02-04 Thread pavelcheckoff

Re: Excessive bugs mean Mozilla's death!