Re: Mozilla and the poetry
and; to have one evil laugh will be always good for keep you body and mind healthful.
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
I bet they have their reasons for disagreeing with you just like you have your reasons disagreeing with them. ¿'HOW MANY' Designers, Graphic Designers, or Architects, or people related with the visual arts, are right now working 'WITH' the programers building and 'DESIGNING' the User Interface? Why don't you create skins then? Para may silbi ka naman.
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
and; to have one evil laugh will be always good for keep you body and mind healthful. And if it succeeds, all the hundreds of evil programmers will have a good laugh at you. :P
Re: mozilla 0.9.9 crashes
On Sunday 17 March 2002 4:27 am, Brian Heinrich wrote: The one thing that seems constantly to come up in jukola's postings has to do with why the /name/ of his computer is being transmitted /via/ TalkBack. On a couple of occasions, he also made mention of user name. But how can you tell a TalkBack report came from one computer and not a whole group of computers unless you have an identifying mark that refers to the computer that had the crash? Admittedly, it could be the name, the IP, or what have you. To me the name is the less intrusive of any I could think. But let me go back to my original point. There is no spyware here, nothing underhand going on. You opt in to the TalkBack program and by doing so you agree to have such information that the guys at mozilla think they need, forwarded on, including the name of your PC. If you don't want to provide this information, or you are going to be selective in which information you give, don't opt in to TalkBack. Moz will work fine without Talkback, but the developers will not get vital information to make Moz better if a great number of people did this. So, on balance, I trust them to be asking for that information, and only that information, that's needed. Again, if you don't trust them, don't opt in... -- Graham
Emptying Folders
I can't remember if this matter has been raised before, but I can't find anything relating to it, so here goes. When you create a folder in Moz (to filter your mail) there seems to be no way of emptying just that folder, and you have to delete messages one by one. I receive about 200 mails a day and I have been testing Mozilla News (with and without Enigmail) with this high level of traffic. Most of the other bugs I have come across are minor compared to this omission. Is there any chance this could be incororated into the next build? -- Graham
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Bamm Gabriana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message a71k11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:a71k11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Why don't you create skins then? Are you talking serious? ...well may be. But to be honest, i believe mozilla has nothing new to offer until these days that make me design skins; may be the fact that it is an open source proyect..., but it is being built over NOTHING. So as i said, anyone move one finger, and all mozilla is history, mozilla go to trash, like many other applications has done it. Someone tell me one thing authentic of mozilla. And please... dont tell me Gecko, XUL, or something like.
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonathon Lamon wrote: I have been wondering this question for some time. Why, all of the sudden, with the release of the Mozilla code, was the option to move the Cache diretory taken out? It wasn't. Everything was rewritten from scratch, and the option to move the Cache directory didn't make it into Netscape 6.2.1. The latest version of Mozilla does have it, however: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ /Jonas
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
blackbox wrote: i have written two bugs, a some commets in other bugs, all about the Design of the user interface... They has told me this: please stop wasting our time Lancer, please tell the truth: You opened two bugs, both of them are duplicates or other existing bugs so they were resolved as duplicates. At least on one of them you reopened several times with long speeches that didn't explain really a difference between your bug and the other one, but instead you added a lot of noise saying senseless things such that the XUL must be changed right now (proving that you don't know what is XUL). So you were wasting the time of the people that had to deal you that bug and so you were told. You don't want to learn the way that mozilla.org works with bugzilla, instead you just appear and say I have studied a lot and I now more than you. You must do the things the way I say. You didn't care to read the previous studies about how the menus should be rearranged, you are almost spitting in the face of all the people that has been having long meetings and ongoing discussions about that issues. You didn't care about all the user feedback that has been used to find a right way to deal with the menus, you just know more that all the people that has been working in this area for several years. Suppose for a moment that your bug is accepted and all the menus are changed (although someone should make the patch, and it seems that you only like to talk...). What would happen when the previous bug is fixed? I'll tell you: your changes would be discarded and overwritten by the previous bug because you didn't want to contribute in the right place. Another prove that you don't understand what is mozilla is that you are just another one of those who think that mozilla is an end user product, but this is just plain wrong. the aim isn't to get the people to use mozilla, but instead to use gecko (and also the other technologies developed here). Ask Ben Bucksch why did he start the Beonex project. Also you didn't show any respect to Alfred Keyser with your comments about Wood or little Mozilla, but you want to be treated like a serious person or even a genius. No, that's not the way man. And how the hell do you want to be treated like a real Mozilla fan if you don't even use it for mail?
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
blackbox wrote: i have written two bugs, a some commets in other bugs, all about the Design of the user interface... They has told me this: please stop wasting our time Here's some comments from bug 68136 (the full-screen mode bug): --- Additional Comment #248 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:03 --- WHY MOZILLA IS SO SLOW? WHY TAKES SO MUCH TIME TO LOAD MOZILLA? WHY ARE U WORKING ON MOZILLA, IF MOZILLA WILL NEVER WORK FAST AND GOOD? --- Additional Comment #249 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:07 --- WHY MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS MORE FASTER? If that's the quality of your comments, I can understand why you are being told to stop wasting the developer's time. Are you a troll, Lancer? Or are you just a Bundy [1]? [1] For definition of a Bundy, see posting from PeEmm at Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:30:27 MET in thread Bundy vs. Jay Garcia. /Jonas
Re: mozilla 0.9.9 crashes
On 3/17/2002 1:21 AM, Glenn Miller apparently wrote exactly the following:
On 16 Mar 2002, Sören Kuklau was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
Apache is in itself targeted at end users (server admins in this case).
Mozilla is - afaics - rather targeted at testing, feedback, development,
etc. groups.
So why bother writing such a programme as Mozilla if it's got such a very
very tiny market as that?
Erm...
Mozilla *distros* are targeted at various end user groups. There's
Galeon, there will soon be AOL 8.0, there's Netscape 6.x, there's
K-Meleon, there's Chimera. These share around 1-3% of the market,
dependant on what statistics you refer to.
Surely you'd want Mozilla to have the largest exposure and biggest market-
share of any browser currently available.
Mozilla isn't a browser like the others though. I prefer to call it a
web development platform.
So what if it's also going to be skinned by some corporates and used as
their own custom browser.
Then it's not Mozilla, but company browser name, yet another distro of
Mozilla. And *then* it's for everyone.
Mozilla is for all of us who want open-source
software, open standards, and an open Internet!
Ben Bucksch has explained it at
http://www.beonex.com/communicator/doc/vsmozilla.html . :-)
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla is the best
Well, tell us why you think it is better. Hi, It's a thousand time faster than OE and defineatly Outlook. It retreives the newsgroups faster, mail and posts faster. It has more options like what to do when replying to a thread and it has a nicer look and feel. It is WAY faster really, and for the features, all of the ones I need are here. Thanks. /Regards The Undertaker
Re: Mozilla is the best
I'm glad you liked it as it is, bugs and all. I'm still hoping for the day that I can finally make that switch to Mozilla mail. Don't get me wrong I love Mozilla and I'm happy that it is making a lot of progress. Yeah that's what I was thinking of a couple of months earlier. I wanted to switch to Mozilla completly and leave IE/OE/O out of it, so I tried 0.9.9 version, it was so good and better than OE. It's just that Moz Mail is too slow on my computer, but OE is really fast and works exactly as I want it to. I do use Moz Mail to beta test it but not yet as my main email client. hehe that's the other way around on my PC. It looks like most of the bugs won't make it to 1.0. Maybe when 1.0 comes out, we should call it a 1.0 Preview Release instead of a Final Release. Too many obvious bugs. Then developers could work on the branch and then fix all of the stability bugs before calling it a Final Release. But then that would leave very few people for the trunk. Oh, well... Obvious bugs? I haven't noticed any so far..which is a good thing :) -- /Regards The Undertaker
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Bamm Gabriana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message a71k13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:a71k13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... and; to have one evil laugh will be always good for keep you body and mind healthful. And if it succeeds, all the hundreds of evil programmers will have a good laugh at you. :P Yes, it is true... . ...but i will be happy if mozilla demonstrates what happen when the things are done without the money between(...that is what i have undrestood).
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
1.- You seem to have a bug named i want to pee to fix the kitchen. 2.- I never said XUL have to be changed, in fact i remenber to have said that you can do what you think is right with XUL. 3.- I did talk about the word Language, and all your closed minds understood that i was talking about XUL. The meaning of the word language is very more HUGE. 4.- I didnt came to Mozilla because to consider it a product, i am not such an idiot. 5.- I dont know what da hell is Gecko. 6.- : I have studied a lot and I now more than you. You must do the things the way I say. I never said that. Give you and tell you what i think doesnt mean that. And how the hell do you want to be treated like a real Mozilla fan if you don't even use it for mail? 1) ¿Mozilla Fun? ¿what is your age? 2) I used until you all told me that i am wasting your time.
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
hahaha... Is that a lie? but for: WHY ARE U WORKING ON MOZILLA, IF MOZILLA WILL NEVER WORK FAST AND GOOD? ...that was stupid, i had to say it. Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... blackbox wrote: i have written two bugs, a some commets in other bugs, all about the Design of the user interface... They has told me this: please stop wasting our time Here's some comments from bug 68136 (the full-screen mode bug): --- Additional Comment #248 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:03 --- WHY MOZILLA IS SO SLOW? WHY TAKES SO MUCH TIME TO LOAD MOZILLA? WHY ARE U WORKING ON MOZILLA, IF MOZILLA WILL NEVER WORK FAST AND GOOD? --- Additional Comment #249 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:07 --- WHY MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS MORE FASTER? If that's the quality of your comments, I can understand why you are being told to stop wasting the developer's time. Are you a troll, Lancer? Or are you just a Bundy [1]? [1] For definition of a Bundy, see posting from PeEmm at Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:30:27 MET in thread Bundy vs. Jay Garcia. /Jonas
Re: Can 2 Versions of Mozilla Run on Same PC?
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:57:16 GMT, John Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dom Incollingo wrote: Does anyone know if it is possible (or will be possible in the near future) to have two versions of Mozilla installed on the same PC? Yes, at least in linux. Just install them into separate directories. As an extension to that, one can symlink the main, tried-and-true Mozilla to a generic entry like this: /usr/local/mozilla-0.9.8 /usr/local/mozilla-0.9.9 /usr/local/mozilla - /usr/local/mozilla-0.9.8 Then just have all your users point their paths to /usr/local/mozilla (which is Mozilla-0.9.8) while you try/await reports on Mozilla 0.9.9. When that happens, update the symlink to /usr/local/mozilla-0.9.9. If any problems occur after that, switching to the old version is as simple as changing the symlink. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Can 2 Versions of Mozilla Run on Same PC?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dom Incollingo wrote: Does anyone know if it is possible (or will be possible in the near future) to have two versions of Mozilla installed on the same PC? Yes, at least in linux. Just install them into separate directories. -- -John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request oreven known?
I know about the Watched Threads feature, and it's very nice that I can now scroll down and see which threads are watched if they have new messages now. But, I'd also like to see at a glance whether a newsgroup has new unread messages in one of my watched threads at a glance on the left side, that is, without scrolling down through half the messages in the newsgroup to find that little watched icon. That in itself assumes that there are new messages, if it's a single message, then the watched icon doesn't show up. Kenneth Garth Wallace wrote: Mozilla has a watched threads feature (I've never used it so I don't know if it works...or even what exactly it does). Go to the Message menu, it should be at the bottom (at least in 0.9.9). The hotkey is W.
Re: full full screen
Morten Nilsen wrote: speaking of fullscreen... why is the milestone built without xinerama support? it makes fullscreening on linux with dualhead useless... Not like there is fullscreening on Linux. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: SMTP
Tim Hanson wrote: .9.9 picked up an SMTP (outbound) server, obsolete, from one of these, and I can't figure out where to change it. Edit/MailNews account settings/Outgoing Server (SMTP) -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonathon Lamon wrote: I have been wondering this question for some time. Why, all of the sudden, with the release of the Mozilla code, was the option to move the Cache diretory taken out? It wasn't. Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Cache. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: full full screen
Christian Biesinger wrote: Not like there is fullscreening on Linux. Sure there is! it works excellent too, just see here; http://4th-age.com/dr_p/screenshot.jpg I made that screenshot in enlightenment, with a trunk build right before 0.9.9 was released... and 0.9.9 behaves the same way now, except it doesn't have xinerama compiled in, thus making it fullscreen over both my screens (which is unusable) -- Morten Nilsen, aka Dr. P We are the borg^]dbdbiMicrosoft. Prepare to be assimilated^]dbiembraced and extended. Resistance is futile^]dbdbdbiWe know you want it. :wq
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
1.- You seem to have a bug named i want to pee to fix the kitchen. 2.- I never said XUL have to be changed, in fact i remenber to have said that you can do what you think is right with XUL. 3.- I did talk about the word Language, and all your closed minds understood that i was talking about XUL. The meaning of the word language is very more HUGE. 4.- I didnt came to Mozilla because to consider it a product, i am not such an idiot. 5.- I dont know what da hell is Gecko. 6.- : I have studied a lot and I now more than you. You must do the things the way I say. I never said that. Give you and tell you what i think doesnt mean that. And how the hell do you want to be treated like a real Mozilla fan if you don't even use it for mail? 1) ¿Mozilla Fun? ¿what is your age? 2) I used until you all told me that i am wasting your time.
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Christopher Jahn wrote: I'm not denying there are problems; there ARE problems. But if you don't post the links, no one can look to see the specific cause; sometimes it will be Mozilla, and sometimes it will be problems with the server or the code on the page. Without an URL to go check out it is impossible to see which is the case in any specific complaint. Correct. But don't expect me creating publicly available publishing site with such functionality. For about year there are rumours Gecko2 will replace current one once Mozilla 1.0 is shipped so I simply don't border with these things. Forms controls piss off far much people than this one case so I can live with it. Maybe it will work some day. (BTW - what is more important for me 1.0 will ship with uncomplete implementation of XBL and we all will have to live with it until 2.0...) Jirka PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it.
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
...well may be. But to be honest, i believe mozilla has nothing new to offer until these days that make me design skins; may be the fact that it is an open source proyect..., but it is being built over NOTHING. So as i said, anyone move one finger, and all mozilla is history, mozilla go to trash, like many other applications has done it. Well, Mozilla is a very high-profile project, watched by the press and the tech community in general. That will make it difficult to just disappear like many other apps in the past. Someone tell me one thing authentic of mozilla. And please... dont tell me Gecko, XUL, or something like. XPCOM. It is one of the biggest leaps in software technology. Even if Mozilla goes away, the effects of XPCOM will continue to be felt because it succeeded where Java failed: allowing programmers to create true cross-platform applications.
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Yes, it is true... . ...but i will be happy if mozilla demonstrates what happen when the things are done without the money between(...that is what i have undrestood). I don't understand what you mean. (I am not a native English speaker either, but I try to write in understandable English. I hope you do too.)
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
5.- I dont know what da hell is Gecko. Gecko is the rendering engine of Mozilla. It is a program the interprets HTML and magically paints it to the screen. The Mozilla browser is Gecko plus a user interface. XUL is a language used to write the user interface. Gecko is the first software in the world that displays near 100% standards compliant web pages. XUL is the world's first text-based, cross platform user interface language. For the first time programmers can change the UI without having to recompile their application.
Re: Mozilla is the best
Yeah that's what I was thinking of a couple of months earlier. I wanted to switch to Mozilla completly and leave IE/OE/O out of it, so I tried 0.9.9 version, it was so good and better than OE. I'm patient. After all my hardware is old. It's just that Moz Mail is too slow on my computer, but OE is really fast and works exactly as I want it to. I do use Moz Mail to beta test it but not yet as my main email client. hehe that's the other way around on my PC. Maybe you have a fast computer? Mozilla is faster than IE on a fast computer but slower than IE on a slow computer. That is because Mozilla has a very fast rendering engine but it consumes plenty of memory doing it. IE requires less memory and so is better on an old computer like I have.
Re: Java plugin not installing for Mozilla
Bamm Gabriana wrote: Each build should include the latest version of this file as of the time the build was released. And increase the download by 10-15 MB? No thanks. Hmm... would the java plugin work if only the file were copied but JRE isn't installed? I can't imagine that it would. Java consists of more than a 300 KB library. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Moz displays form fields to fat?
Bundy wrote: Kryptolus typed: Sid Vicious wrote: I go to this page in IE and Moz and get to wildly different looks. Anyone know why? IE looks fine, and Moz looks funked out (too fat fields). http://www.benway.com/misc/Dragonguys.html You're experiencing http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33654 Opened Mar 28,2000... two years ago. Still no fix. -- Kyle I don't know. Seems like *glaring* bugs such as this would be fixed *months* before now. *And* it's still going to be present in 1.0. Someone takes pains to lay a page out that is tight and consise, only to have Moz trash it thusly. Seems like the Moz crew bit off a whole lot more than they could chew. Rather than look enept with a bug infested 1.0 release, they should push it's release down the road until it's actually finished (that is, what it's supposed to do, it does right). -- sid
Re: Java plugin not installing for Mozilla
Hmm... would the java plugin work if only the file were copied but JRE isn't installed? I can't imagine that it would. Java consists of more than a 300 KB library. Thanks. What if it's just the plugin and the 300 kb library? I guess that wouldn't add much to the download time?
Re: Mozilla is the best
The Undertaker wrote: I'm glad you liked it as it is, bugs and all. I'm still hoping for the day that I can finally make that switch to Mozilla mail. Don't get me wrong I love Mozilla and I'm happy that it is making a lot of progress. Yeah that's what I was thinking of a couple of months earlier. I wanted to switch to Mozilla completly and leave IE/OE/O out of it, so I tried 0.9.9 version, it was so good and better than OE. It's just that Moz Mail is too slow on my computer, but OE is really fast and works exactly as I want it to. I do use Moz Mail to beta test it but not yet as my main email client. hehe that's the other way around on my PC. It looks like most of the bugs won't make it to 1.0. Maybe when 1.0 comes out, we should call it a 1.0 Preview Release instead of a Final Release. Too many obvious bugs. Then developers could work on the branch and then fix all of the stability bugs before calling it a Final Release. But then that would leave very few people for the trunk. Oh, well... Obvious bugs? I haven't noticed any so far..which is a good thing :) Wait 'till you get hit with the .msf bug and loose all your emails. -- sid
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
Jiri Znamenacek wrote: Correct. But don't expect me creating publicly available publishing site with such functionality. For about year there are rumours Gecko2 will replace current one once Mozilla 1.0 is shipped so I simply don't border with these things. I've been following Mozilla for a long, long time now and have never heard anything about a gecko2. Searching for it in bugzilla yields no results. I don't think we'll see a gecko2 for a long time. Forms controls piss off far much people than this one case so I can live with it. Maybe it will work some day. (BTW - what is more important for me 1.0 will ship with uncomplete implementation of XBL and we all will have to live with it until 2.0...) XBL form controls are a Mozilla 1.0 requirement. Jirka PS: Maybe I can try to create one HTML file simulating such functionality. Hmm... I'll take a look at it. Claiming that there is a problem and providing no evidence of it makes a hard bug to solve by the developers :) So please do.
Re: Emptying Folders
Graham wrote: I can't remember if this matter has been raised before, but I can't find anything relating to it, so here goes. When you create a folder in Moz (to filter your mail) there seems to be no way of emptying just that folder, and you have to delete messages one by one. I receive about 200 mails a day and I have been testing Mozilla News (with and without Enigmail) with this high level of traffic. Most of the other bugs I have come across are minor compared to this omission. Is there any chance this could be incororated into the next build? Just ensure that the summary pane has focus, then Ctrl-A, DEL (or Edit-Select All, right-click, Delete Message). -- I would rather gnaw my leg off, pack the bleeding stump with salt, and run in a circle on broken glass than have to deal with any Microsoft product on a regular basis. -- Dan Zimmerman, Vanderbilt University, when asked about Windows NT. Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Kenneth Pardue wrote: I know about the Watched Threads feature, and it's very nice that I can now scroll down and see which threads are watched if they have new messages now. But, I'd also like to see at a glance whether a newsgroup has new unread messages in one of my watched threads at a glance on the left side, that is, without scrolling down through half the messages in the newsgroup to find that little watched icon. That in itself assumes that there are new messages, if it's a single message, then the watched icon doesn't show up. Kenneth Garth Wallace wrote: Mozilla has a watched threads feature (I've never used it so I don't know if it works...or even what exactly it does). Go to the Message menu, it should be at the bottom (at least in 0.9.9). The hotkey is W. there is a little mouse button in the folder pane in the upper right that you can check to turn on the unread, total message counts.. to display if you haven't already. -dennis
Re: Mozilla is the best
Sid Vicious wrote: Wait 'till you get hit with the .msf bug and loose all your emails. Which bug are you talking about? -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page
Garth Almgren wrote: Parish wrote: What do other people see at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx in the Search (KB) box at the top left? At the moment I just see the Search now link and the green button with a white arrow. snip It may be that it's only my home machine, which is running a CVS build, that has this problem and not my work machine which is running 0.9.9. Both W2K. I noticed this last night when I went looking for a solution to my WinXP networking problem. Build 2002031503 WinXP currently, and it isn't working today either. It would seem that somebody needs to evangelize (sp?) Microsoft. Try and make your webpages more friendly for your competition... LOL! they probably made them proprietary IE language stuff.. cause it doesn't work here either.. this is something I see coming.. MS is doing the anti-competitive here with their web-pages. -dman84
Re: full full screen
On 3/17/2002 1:01 PM, Morten Nilsen apparently wrote exactly the following:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Not like there is fullscreening on Linux.
Sure there is!
it works excellent too, just see here;
http://4th-age.com/dr_p/screenshot.jpg
I made that screenshot in enlightenment, with a trunk build right before
0.9.9 was released...
and 0.9.9 behaves the same way now, except it doesn't have xinerama
compiled in, thus making it fullscreen over both my screens (which is
unusable)
The full screen implementations for non-win32 platforms are still in the
works.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page
dman84 wrote: Garth Almgren wrote: Parish wrote: What do other people see at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx in the Search (KB) box at the top left? At the moment I just see the Search now link and the green button with a white arrow. snip It may be that it's only my home machine, which is running a CVS build, that has this problem and not my work machine which is running 0.9.9. Both W2K. I noticed this last night when I went looking for a solution to my WinXP networking problem. Build 2002031503 WinXP currently, and it isn't working today either. It would seem that somebody needs to evangelize (sp?) Microsoft. Try and make your webpages more friendly for your competition... LOL! they probably made them proprietary IE language stuff.. cause it doesn't work here either.. this is something I see coming.. MS is doing the anti-competitive here with their web-pages. But it works sometimes. I've noticed something though; here at home, even though I use the URL http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx it takes me the the *UK* MS website, even though I've removed all MS cookies. How does it do this (know that I'm in the UK)? From my ISP I guess. I wonder if, at work, it takes me the the main (US) website instead, and the code there is different? -dman84 -- I would rather gnaw my leg off, pack the bleeding stump with salt, and run in a circle on broken glass than have to deal with any Microsoft product on a regular basis. -- Dan Zimmerman, Vanderbilt University, when asked about Windows NT. Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience
Re: Mozilla is the best
Maybe you have a fast computer? Mozilla is faster than IE on a fast computer but slower than IE on a slow computer. That is because Mozilla has a very fast rendering engine but it consumes plenty of memory doing it. IE requires less memory and so is better on an old computer like I have. Not particularly, my computer is 64 MB RAM, Win98, Pentium II. Thanks for the information, it's made it a bit clearer. -- /Regards The Undertaker
Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
a proprietary cookie handling method. I would prefer this tiny piece of text that is transmitted back and forth, conveying habits or activities or previously filled in entries, to be handled by the much praised software Cookie Pal, Cookie Crusher, or any other 3rd party shareware cookie blocking software. This way I can feel confident that cookies are very easily dismissed in a passive way and not an unnecessarily active way which would make me tend to pay for any laxness on my part in handling cookies. At the very least, the old style of cookie presentation should be an OPTION for the Mozilla/Netscape/AOL browser user. The programmers of Mozilla owe the users of Mozilla and its derivative browsers the use of the old standby method of getting rid of cookies which is much preferred because it incorporates a simpler way to dismiss the cookies you don't want using a much better logic system, the entire web sites that you don't want, or the entire stream of cookies from previously unvisited websites and accept the ones you do want from the particular web page or entire web site that you want them from without a continual barrage of individual cookies for every situation as Mozilla currently presents them. Cookie Pal for example is the best I've seen in making the process of getting cookies out of your way much more straightforward so that you don't have to keep dealing with the issue over and over. This used to work just fine with Netscape. Now, I guess partly for very stupid users and partly for AOL's agenda in not making it too convenient to get rid of all cookies and still have a perfectly good web browsing experience, an ugly proprietary method has been placed between the browser and the web surfer. The GOOD NEWS is, the web browser OPERA's cookie handling is the standard method and can be used with cookie handling programs and Opera is otherwise a great browser with even better use of Tabs. I suggest that if Mozilla/Netscape doesn't soon show up with the ability to choose NOT to use this stupid proprietary cookie handling method, everyone would be quite happy using OPERA 6. So this is our option if Mozilla doesn't want to fix the cookie situation.
PSM error with yahoo
When i validate ID and password in www.yahoo.fr i obtain this message : This document cannot be displayed unless you install the Personnal Security Manager (PSM). Download and install PSM and tru again, or contact your system administrator. Ok But PSM is already installed !!! I use Mozilla (and PSM) 0.9.9 (binary RPM) on Linux Mandrake 8.1. With other navigator (KDE Konqueror and Opera), i can connect to Yahoo. I have no idea to resolve this problem. Thierry
Re: mozilla ftp resources and 0.9.9
Hey Mitchell, Dawn et al. are you guys going to do a post-mortem analysis of the 0.9.9 release? That one was a day without bugzilla, irc, bonsai and so forth, and I guess 1.0 will cause even more trouble. (Oh, just saw that ftp.mozilla.org is komodo. No wonder irc died ;-)) Are we going to have download.mozilla.org for 1.0 as well? How bad was the load on bugzilla, and if that's critical on it's own, can we do anything about it? I myself found the mirror link pretty hard to find on http://www.mozilla.org/releases/. Is there a way to get the mirrors ready before the /. posting? ;-) Axel
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
(long rambling and partly incoherent tireade snipped)
I'm not sure what you're on about: Mozilla's present Cookie
management is leaps and bounds beyond Communicator's.
If you're complaining that your old Cookie managers don't work
with Mozilla, that's not Mozilla's fault. Eventually these
third party programs will catch up.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Ad astra per aspera.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: full full screen
Sören Kuklau wrote: The full screen implementations for non-win32 platforms are still in the works. The fullscreen implementation as it is is just fine for use with enlightenment (see screenshot) what I want now, is to map the F11 key, so I can use it... -- Morten Nilsen, aka Dr. P We are the borg^]dbdbiMicrosoft. Prepare to be assimilated^]dbiembraced and extended. Resistance is futile^]dbdbdbiWe know you want it. :wq
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Yes but that shows total unread for the entire newsgroup. It doesn't show at a glance an indication if any of my watched threads have unread messages in them does it? All of the applications I've seen have the newsgroup name on the left pane change color (which, I might add, you can see if a message is watched even when it is a single message without any replies, and a watched message/thread changes color for ease to find when scrolling down). Kenneth
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Bamm Gabriana wrote: Gecko is the first software in the world that displays near 100% standards compliant web pages. To be honest MAc IE5 was first with CSS1 support. And even Windows IE is better with handling floats. XUL is the world's first text-based, cross platform user interface language. For the first time programmers can change the UI without having to recompile their application. And what about Tcl/Tk? ^_- Jirka
Re: Java plugin not installing for Mozilla
Bamm Gabriana wrote: Hmm... would the java plugin work if only the file were copied but JRE isn't installed? I can't imagine that it would. Java consists of more than a 300 KB library. Thanks. What if it's just the plugin and the 300 kb library? I guess that wouldn't add much to the download time? I meant plugin == 300 KB library which is _not_ enough. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Kenneth Pardue wrote: Yes but that shows total unread for the entire newsgroup. It doesn't show at a glance an indication if any of my watched threads have unread messages in them does it? All of the applications I've seen have the newsgroup name on the left pane change color (which, I might add, you can see if a message is watched even when it is a single message without any replies, and a watched message/thread changes color for ease to find when scrolling down). Bugzilla is your friend. The part about watch/kill thread icon not appearing on single-messages threads is a known bug (#122640). You should file RFEs for the rest. /Jonas
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
Christopher Jahn wrote: And it came to pass that psmith wrote: (long rambling and partly incoherent tireade snipped) I'm not sure what you're on about: Mozilla's present Cookie management is leaps and bounds beyond Communicator's. If you're complaining that your old Cookie managers don't work with Mozilla, that's not Mozilla's fault. Eventually these third party programs will catch up. Mozilla's cookie management is superior to Communicator's but that's also completely irrelevant. What Mozilla has incorporated to handle cookies is way behind what 3rd party programs are capable of doing, and these programs have been the same now for at least 3 years and have been performing what one needs for cookies. If a browser is going to handle cookies, it should do so in a fully useful way. So I suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla programmers don't know how to incorporate these features. As it is, I expect it's going to be difficult getting around Mozilla's new way of presenting cookies. Now as for your tone, you should give over, and go back to pulling.
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
(long rambling and partly incoherent tireade snipped)
I'm not sure what you're on about: Mozilla's present Cookie
management is leaps and bounds beyond Communicator's.
If you're complaining that your old Cookie managers don't
work with Mozilla, that's not Mozilla's fault. Eventually
these third party programs will catch up.
Mozilla's cookie management is superior to
Communicator's but that's
also completely irrelevant. What Mozilla has incorporated
to handle cookies is way behind what 3rd party programs are
capable of doing, and these programs have been the same now
for at least 3 years and have been performing what one
needs for cookies.
And how are these programs at browsing the web? Or rendering
pages? Or handling mail and or news?
These programs do ONE THING. Of course they do that ONE THING
very well.
It is unreasonable to expect any suite of applications do any
one of them as well as a single program dedicated to a single
application.
If a browser is going to handle
cookies, it should do so in a fully useful way.
Nitpick. Useful is subjective: I find the Cookie Manager
useful and practical.
But by all means, feel free to write your own and submit it. Or
hack it into the code for your own use.
So I
suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla
programmers don't know how to incorporate these features.
Uh huh. And which part of the code have YOU been writing?
As it is, I expect it's going to be difficult getting
around Mozilla's new way of presenting cookies.
Based on?
Now as for your tone, you should give over, and go back
to pulling.
Gee, is that what you kids use in place of wit these days?
How sad for you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Tact is the art of saying nothing when you have nothing to say
Fiona Apple
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
psmith wrote: So I suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla programmers don't know how to incorporate these features. No, the real problem is that Mozilla's programmers have better things to do, and you have not fixed your problem yourself. Oh, BTW, Mozilla's programmers are far less ignorant that a) you think and b) you are coming across as right now. Mike. -- Mike Gratton [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://web.vee.net/ Every motive escalate.
Re: full full screen
On 3/17/2002 3:54 PM, Morten Nilsen apparently wrote exactly the following:
Sören Kuklau wrote:
The full screen implementations for non-win32 platforms are still in
the works.
The fullscreen implementation as it is is just fine for use with
enlightenment (see screenshot) what I want now, is to map the F11 key,
so I can use it...
Well... it won't be mapped again until it's fully implemented.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: full full screen
Sören Kuklau wrote: Well... it won't be mapped again until it's fully implemented. I'd be happy with mapping it locally, but last time I asked, I didn't get anywhere (I'm using mozilla built from cvs btw) -- Morten Nilsen, aka Dr. P We are the borg^]dbdbiMicrosoft. Prepare to be assimilated^]dbiembraced and extended. Resistance is futile^]dbdbdbiWe know you want it. :wq
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
My response was based on your being rude and also saying I'm not sure what you're on about: Maybe you are English or maybe you are fantasizing that you are, who knows Anyhow, I am saying a pretty simple thing here. I don't expect Mozilla to do a great job as the latest and greatest cookie manager. I wish they hadn't tread into the territory at all with their nonstandard method. A tiny accessory program can currently handle the job beautifully for all versions of Netscape before 6, all Opera versions, all IE versions, Copernic, Outlook, Quicken, Neoplanet and almost every program you can tell Cookie Pal is currently residing in memory. This is because these programs don't try to take it upon themselves to take control exactly how the cookie is passed through. So this frustrating new capability should either be able to be turned off completely in the preferences or it should not be in this nonstandard form that will force the 3rd party cookie programs to abandon the Mozilla/Netscape line. Cookies are not a large threat to users' privacy and usually don't have an insidious nature whatsoever, but they also should be able to be voluntarily opted out of easily. Mozilla should not be contributing to complicating what became a standard process. There are enough other issues of privacy on the web that are evolving on their own.
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
Mike Gratton wrote: psmith wrote: So I suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla programmers don't know how to incorporate these features. No, the real problem is that Mozilla's programmers have better things to do, and you have not fixed your problem yourself. Oh, BTW, Mozilla's programmers are far less ignorant that a) you think and b) you are coming across as right now. Mike. No, they don't all have better things to do. Why did they have to bother with changing how cookies are handled then?
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
Christian Mattar wrote: Hi! psmith wrote: (psmith's ranbling snipped) I just checked, Mozilla's and Communicator cookie-files look exactly the same, the use the same spec from http://www.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html. I suggest you inform yourself properly next time before throwing around any invalid claims. Oh, and BTW: Cookies were *invented* by Netscape. It never was an open standardizing process, so Mozilla's cookie handling (or IE's for that matter, which AFAIK uses the same format) is no more or less proprietary thans Communicator's. Christian Yes, the cookie files look the same. The problem is how the cookie is handled in real-time as it is passed through the browser. Maybe all the programmers on this group who don't think this is an issue of any concern to Mozilla programmers need to vote to get rid of all that fancy cookie handling stuff written into Mozilla before you all attempt to make it even more elaborate than you did.
Re: Solved: Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page
Parish wrote: Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience when you change your antispam scheme, you should update your .sig ;) -- Morten Nilsen, aka Dr. P We are the borg^]dbdbiMicrosoft. Prepare to be assimilated^]dbiembraced and extended. Resistance is futile^]dbdbdbiWe know you want it. :wq
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
My response was based on your being rude and also saying
I'm not sure what you're on about: Maybe you are English
or maybe you are fantasizing that you are, who knows
It only seemed rude becaue you decided to read it as such.
Anyhow, I am saying a pretty simple thing here. I
don't expect
Mozilla to do a great job as the latest and greatest cookie
manager. I wish they hadn't tread into the territory at
all with their nonstandard method.
Perhaps you can post a reference to the definition of the
standard method. It would fill the gaping hole in your
complaint.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Man who falls in blast furnace is certain to feel overwrought.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
BUG?? [Re: Solved: Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page]
Morten Nilsen wrote: Parish wrote: Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience when you change your antispam scheme, you should update your .sig ;) Ah, I think you may have found a bug in Moz. Look at other posts of mine and you'll see that the From: line is Parish psrish_AT_ntlworld.com This post was different (I hadn't spotted this until you pointed it out) in that, while composing the message I needed to restart Moz to double check my facts, so did File-Send Later, restarted Moz, then Edit Message As New from the Unsent Messages folder. This, it seems has changed the From: line. Why? Because when sending e-mails my ISP doesn't allow parish_AT_ntlworld.com; it bounces messages saying the From: is not a valid Internet address (their way of preventing their customers sending spam I guess) so I use NOSPAM for e-mails. Posting to news.mozilla.org allows changing ``'' to ``_AT_'', even though the messages go out through the same SMTP server. The cause is possibly (probably?) that I have changed the settings for news.mozilla.org to use the Sent and Unsent Message folders under my POP server instead of in Local Folders. Is this a bug, or by design? Anyone know? Thanks for pointing this out Morten. Regards, Parish. -- I would rather gnaw my leg off, pack the bleeding stump with salt, and run in a circle on broken glass than have to deal with any Microsoft product on a regular basis. -- Dan Zimmerman, Vanderbilt University, when asked about Windows NT. Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience
New Server Traffic?
What's going on? The news server seemed to eat about 4-6 days of posts and then most everyone else has vanished from the newsgroups Mike == Forget the Joneses I can't keep up with The Simpsons!
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Thanks Jonas! I'm new to filing/voting for bugs. I've already got my vote in for 122640. I didn't know if there was anything filed for the others, I'll do that right away! Thanks again! Kenneth Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Kenneth Pardue wrote: Yes but that shows total unread for the entire newsgroup. It doesn't show at a glance an indication if any of my watched threads have unread messages in them does it? All of the applications I've seen have the newsgroup name on the left pane change color (which, I might add, you can see if a message is watched even when it is a single message without any replies, and a watched message/thread changes color for ease to find when scrolling down). Bugzilla is your friend. The part about watch/kill thread icon not appearing on single-messages threads is a known bug (#122640). You should file RFEs for the rest. /Jonas
Re: Mozilla 0.9.9 Drudge Report
And besides, boasting of such certification only makes you look like an ego-centered bozo, IMHO. Here we go again. If you want to read this argument, look it up on the google groups. :)
Re: New Server Traffic?
Mike Hatz (Remove the SPAM) wrote: What's going on? The news server seemed to eat about 4-6 days of posts and then most everyone else has vanished from the newsgroups You're using snews://secnews.netscape.com. Try using news://news.mozilla.org/. (They are actually the same server -- the difference lies in the news vs snews.) /Jonas
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
I've filed two bugs on the matter. Here are the links: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131579 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131573
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
Hi! psmith wrote: Christian Mattar wrote: Hi! psmith wrote: (psmith's ranbling snipped) I just checked, Mozilla's and Communicator cookie-files look exactly the same, the use the same spec from http://www.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html. I suggest you inform yourself properly next time before throwing around any invalid claims. Oh, and BTW: Cookies were *invented* by Netscape. It never was an open standardizing process, so Mozilla's cookie handling (or IE's for that matter, which AFAIK uses the same format) is no more or less proprietary thans Communicator's. Christian Yes, the cookie files look the same. The problem is how the cookie is handled in real-time as it is passed through the browser. Maybe all the programmers on this group who don't think this is an issue of any concern to Mozilla programmers need to vote to get rid of all that fancy cookie handling stuff written into Mozilla before you all attempt to make it even more elaborate than you did. I've downloaded Cookie Pal to see how it works. It basically awaits the Windows message box which pops up when a cookie is received, intercepts it, and automatically sends either 'Accept Cookie' or 'Reject Cookie'. This won't work with XUL, since I don't think external apps can easily detect XUL-popups, since they are rendered by Mozilla itself, not the Windows GUI subsystem. This in indeed a problem, although it doesn't have anything directly to do with Mozilla's cookie processing, but the way the GUI is drawn. I don't think that there's an easy solution to this problem, since XUL isn't going to go away anytime soon. I guess in an embedded version of Mozilla like Kmeleon(although I don't know whether it has *any* cookie handling capatbilites, i.e. opens a message box when a cookie arrives), Cookie Pal could easily be adapted to work with it. Christian
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Kenneth Pardue wrote: I've filed two bugs on the matter. Here are the links: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131579 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131573 Hmm... I just confirmed bug 131573, and I got this message: Changes to bug 131573 submitted Email sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Excluding: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why have you turned off email notifications for when your bugs are confirmed? /Jonas
Re: full full screen
Thanks, I'm using version 0.9.9, however the most full screen that I could go still left small grey boarders in some parts of the screen. I am trying to get rid of everything. Bamm Gabriana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message a713b6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:a713b6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I am looking for a way to get Mozilla to run (on win32) in a FULL screen mode, I mean, totally full screen w/o the top header bar for the window. I am prepared to hack away at the code if need be, but if someone could at least point me in the right direction that would be appreciated. Hi, The latest milestone no longer has the title bar in full screen mode. It does have a full screen toolbar but that can be hidden as well. If you are using 0.9.8 then I suggest you try 0.9.9. If you want to hack at it, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] He is in charge of the code for full screen mode and he will be happy to have more people helping out. Bamm
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Jiri Znamenacek wrote: To be honest MAc IE5 was first with CSS1 support. And even Windows IE is better with handling floats. And what about Tcl/Tk? ^_- Jirka (Sorry, snipped Bamm's comments.) Yes, IE 5/Mac was the first to give nearly 100% support for CSS1. IE 6/Win *still* has some major problems with CSS box-model properties; Moz/NS 6.2.1 don't; all three seem to handle float all right. Brian -- We sail tonight for Singapore | We're all as mad as hatters here I've fallen for a tawny moor | Took off to the land of Nod Drank with all the Chinamen | Walked the sewers of Paris I danced along a colored wind | Dangled from a rope of sand You must say goodbye to me -- Tom Waits, 'Singapore'
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Sorry, just hit the wrong checkmark. I'll change that. Thanks for letting me know or else I would have had no clue. Kenneth Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Kenneth Pardue wrote: I've filed two bugs on the matter. Here are the links: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131579 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131573 Hmm... I just confirmed bug 131573, and I got this message: Changes to bug 131573 submitted Email sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Excluding: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why have you turned off email notifications for when your bugs are confirmed? /Jonas
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Maybe it was only removed from Netscape? AOL have some reason to not allow us to move the Cache dir? Christian Biesinger wrote: Jonathon Lamon wrote: I have been wondering this question for some time. Why, all of the sudden, with the release of the Mozilla code, was the option to move the Cache diretory taken out? It wasn't. Edit/Preferences/Advanced/Cache.
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonathon Lamon wrote: Maybe it was only removed from Netscape? AOL have some reason to not allow us to move the Cache dir? As I already said in this thread said, it was not _removed_, it was simply _not implemented again_, as everything was rewritten from scratch. So the ability to move the Cache directory didn't make it into Netscape 6.2.1, but the latest version of Mozilla does have it: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ The next version of Netscape, version 6.5, will have it as well. /Jonas
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
What i'd like to see on the subject is that in the cookies window of the preferences. I'd like to view where exactly the company the cookie come from what its purpose is and date received. That way if i want to delete one to trouble shoot a problem. Example even in CookieCutter the information on the cookie is stuff that possibly a Unix expert could decipher. So I don't know whether to delete it or not. example I have a site called advisorExpress (Fidelity Advisor) that use to work in Communicator. Then it started taking at least a half-hour (even on DSL) to come up. Once in you had no problem going from page to page. If i used IE I had no problems. I wanted to delete just the cookie for AdvisorExpress to see if its a cookie problem. But even using cookiecutter I can't determine which one to delete. There is something almost like that in IE though it doesn't give quite enough info either. psmith wrote: Christopher Jahn wrote: And it came to pass that psmith wrote: (long rambling and partly incoherent tireade snipped) I'm not sure what you're on about: Mozilla's present Cookie management is leaps and bounds beyond Communicator's. If you're complaining that your old Cookie managers don't work with Mozilla, that's not Mozilla's fault. Eventually these third party programs will catch up. Mozilla's cookie management is superior to Communicator's but that's also completely irrelevant. What Mozilla has incorporated to handle cookies is way behind what 3rd party programs are capable of doing, and these programs have been the same now for at least 3 years and have been performing what one needs for cookies. If a browser is going to handle cookies, it should do so in a fully useful way. So I suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla programmers don't know how to incorporate these features. As it is, I expect it's going to be difficult getting around Mozilla's new way of presenting cookies. Now as for your tone, you should give over, and go back to pulling. -- --- 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: BUG?? [Re: Solved: Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page]
Christian Biesinger wrote: Parish wrote: Posting to news.mozilla.org allows changing ``'' to ``_AT_'', even though the messages go out through the same SMTP server. No, posting to news.mozilla.org does not use any SMTP server at all, but the NTTP server news.mozilla.org. So in the Mail Newsgroup Account Settings, Advanced button on the first screen, Always use default server means news.mozilla.org (in this case) then? -- I would rather gnaw my leg off, pack the bleeding stump with salt, and run in a circle on broken glass than have to deal with any Microsoft product on a regular basis. -- Dan Zimmerman, Vanderbilt University, when asked about Windows NT. Anti-spam e-mail address, change _AT_, sorry for the inconvenience
Re: full full screen
John wrote:
Thanks, I'm using version 0.9.9, however the most full screen that I could
go still left small grey boarders in some parts of the screen. I am trying
to get rid of everything.
First, shutdown moz. Second, locate the chrome folder under Mozilla
(c:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\ by default) and look in
that folder for modern.jar, this is the skin for the modern theme.
The easiest way to turn stuff off stuff in the GUI is to change the
navigator.css file (turning stuff on involves editing the xul, which is
more involved). This file is located in modern.jar (I use the modern
skin, if you use classic, then it'll be in classic.jar). JAR files are
gzip format, so any ZIP program will open them.
Do a text search for #nav-bar. Once you find the last reference to
#nav-bar itself, insert the lines:
#nav-bar[toolbarmode=small]{
display:none !important;
}
Get the file back in the JAR in the same location, reload moz, hit F11
and you're good. Note that you can't get out of fullscreen if you don't
visit a non-homepage site first, I don't know why this is.
If you want to turn off other stuff (toolbars, etc), learn to use the
DOM inspector. Simply inspect a window, find the id of the element you
want to change, then insert a rule in the appropriate CSS file (I've
heard there is a userChrome.css, can anyone confirm this? if so, then
forget editing the jars and just stick these rules there.), the syntax
is #id{display:none !important;}, where id is the element id.
grayrest
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
And it came to pass that Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
What i'd like to see on the subject is that in the cookies
window of the preferences. I'd like to view where exactly
the company the cookie come from what its purpose is and
date received. That way if i want to delete one to trouble
shoot a problem. Example even in CookieCutter the
information on the cookie is stuff that possibly a Unix
expert could decipher. So I don't know whether to delete it
or not.
example I have a site called advisorExpress (Fidelity
Advisor) that use to work in Communicator. Then it started
taking at least a half-hour (even on DSL) to come up. Once
in you had no problem going from page to page. If i used IE
I had no problems. I wanted to delete just the cookie for
AdvisorExpress to see if its a cookie problem. But even
using cookiecutter I can't determine which one to delete.
There is something almost like that in IE though it doesn't
give quite enough info either.
The problem is you can't get the purpose of the Cookie unless
its author includes it somewhere. Mozilla DOES display:
Name
Information (which is admittedly apocryphal)
host (who put it there)
path
Secure Server
Expiration date.
It also allows you to remove cookies, and block them from being
re-accepted.
But little headway can be made until cookie handling is more
standardized than it is currently.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla 0.9.9 Drudge Report
Glenn Miller wrote: On 17 Mar 2002, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. was seen to have posted this wee note into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows: Sounds that way seems similar to PageMill Glenn Miller wrote: On 17 Mar 2002, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. was seen to have posted this wee note into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows: In fact I'd be hard pressed even to know how to open it up. You click on the Icon, Phil'. Simple once you know how, eh! Funny that eh! Glenn Miller -- What some people have against Open Source Software is what Fundamentalist Christians or Moslems have against Knowledge. The point was That I have never used FrontPage. Nothing else. But from all the bad press about it in various newsgroups I wouldn't want use it. -- --- 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: BUG?? [Re: Solved: Re: Mozilla displaying the MS KB search page]
And it came to pass that Parish wrote:
Christian Biesinger wrote:
Parish wrote:
Posting to news.mozilla.org
allows changing ``@'' to ``_AT_'', even though the
messages go out through the same SMTP server.
No, posting to news.mozilla.org does not use any SMTP
server at all, but the NTTP server news.mozilla.org.
So in the Mail Newsgroup Account Settings, Advanced
button on the first screen, Always use default server
means news.mozilla.org (in this case) then?
No, it means that if you *email* a reply, or *email in addition*
to posting, the news.mozilla.org account will use your default
SMPT server.
Anything *posted* to news.mozilla.org groups will use the
news.mozilla.org nntp server.
But answering your original question: yes, it appears to be a
bug that Mozilla allows you to enter user_at_isp.com in a
field which must contain a valid email format ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
to work with most servers.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
We don't hate vegetarians, we just think they're funny.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: New Server Traffic?
And it came to pass that Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Mike Hatz (Remove the SPAM) wrote:
What's going on? The news server seemed to eat about 4-6
days of posts and then most everyone else has vanished
from the newsgroups
You're using snews://secnews.netscape.com. Try using
news://news.mozilla.org/. (They are actually the same
server -- the
difference lies in the news vs snews.)
Apparently there is some issue between the two servers, as I've
heard complaints in the netscape6 group about posts missing from
the Secnews.netscape.com server.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
We don't hate vegetarians, we just think they're funny.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla 0.9.9 Drudge Report
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: To your way of thinking, A person that becomes a medical Doctor should never ever under any circumstances use Dr in front of his name. Or that a Person that receives some type of Docorate Degree can not use PhD at end of his or her name. Or one that gets a degree in Electrical Engineering can't use EE at the end. Or mechanical Engineer can't use ME. Many lawyers use the suffix PC at end of there name. That is exactly what he is saying except for s/never ever under any circumstance/not in normal newsgroup postings
Annoying Javascript bug?
Save all your works before going following address, this could crash your computer. (*You have been warned*) http://www.saunalahti.fi/lumipesu/lol.html Is there anyway to stop Javascript looping endless times? or config Mozilla somehow, that it ask first if user want to launch Telnet?
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: blackbox wrote: i have written two bugs, a some commets in other bugs, all about the Design of the user interface... They has told me this: please stop wasting our time Here's some comments from bug 68136 (the full-screen mode bug): --- Additional Comment #248 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:03 --- WHY MOZILLA IS SO SLOW? WHY TAKES SO MUCH TIME TO LOAD MOZILLA? WHY ARE U WORKING ON MOZILLA, IF MOZILLA WILL NEVER WORK FAST AND GOOD? --- Additional Comment #249 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:07 --- WHY MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS MORE FASTER? If that's the quality of your comments, I can understand why you are being told to stop wasting the developer's time. Are you a troll, Lancer? Or are you just a Bundy [1]? [1] For definition of a Bundy, see posting from PeEmm at Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:30:27 MET in thread Bundy vs. Jay Garcia. /Jonas These comments, as well as the material posted by A. Martinez, are more than marginally telling. I'd tried to be politely suggestive in my responses, but there would seem to be little help for it. So . . . : Lancer: You're acting like stupidly arrogant git who's pouting like a kid in a snit because not enough attention is being paid to her or him. You're neither a troll nor a Bundy; Bundy at least seems genuinely to care about the success of this project and what it might mean for Netscape. Rather (and I can't help it; the name just seems to call for it), you're akin to a boil that needs to be, well, lanced. That's *much* more harsh that I would prefer it to be, but there seems to be no other way. If you don't like the fact that hundreds (thousands?) or people aren't going to change the rules of the game just to accommodate you, and if you aren't willing to play by those rules, then perhaps it is best that you just pack up your toys and go home. Again, I apologise for the harshness of tone of the foregoing, but I'm finding it *awfully* hard to feel even a scintilla of sympathy for you at the moment. . . . Brian -- We sail tonight for Singapore | We're all as mad as hatters here I've fallen for a tawny moor | Took off to the land of Nod Drank with all the Chinamen | Walked the sewers of Paris I danced along a colored wind | Dangled from a rope of sand You must say goodbye to me -- Tom Waits, 'Singapore'
Re: Annoying Javascript bug?
Ok, the page was removed. Check attached Html file.
Re: Annoying Javascript bug?
Ok, the page was removed. Check attached Zip file (html inside). Bug.zip Description: Zip compressed data
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Jonathon Lamon wrote: Maybe it was only removed from Netscape? AOL have some reason to not allow us to move the Cache dir? As I already said in this thread said, it was not _removed_, it was simply _not implemented again_, Indeed, I'm sorry for using the wrong words. I should've said Mozilla does contain it. -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Repeat after me....(another tirade on Mozilla cookie handling)
psmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 17 Mar 2002: Cookies are not a large threat to users' privacy and usually don't have an insidious nature whatsoever, but they also should be able to be voluntarily opted out of easily. Mozilla should not be contributing to complicating what became a standard process. There are enough other issues of privacy on the web that are evolving on their own. Please do point me to an RFC for cookie handling. Show me exactly what the standard you speak of is, and what this proprietary cookie handling method you claim Mozilla uses is. I promise you, if you give me the RFC for cookie handling, and show me where Mozilla doesn't follow it, I will devote my free time, giving up my late nights with my girlfriend to fix it /just for you/. Please do show me now -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: New Server Traffic?
Christopher Jahn wrote: And it came to pass that Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Mike Hatz (Remove the SPAM) wrote: What's going on? The news server seemed to eat about 4-6 days of posts and then most everyone else has vanished from the newsgroups You're using snews://secnews.netscape.com. Try using news://news.mozilla.org/. (They are actually the same server -- the difference lies in the news vs snews.) Apparently there is some issue between the two servers, as I've heard complaints in the netscape6 group about posts missing from the Secnews.netscape.com server. I was one of the early complainers. The easy solution is to create a new account for the Mozilla newsgroups with port 119 and the SSL box unchecked. Then you delete the Mozilla newsgroups from the Netscape news account which has port 563 and the SSL box checked. Matt
What the hell is OSCP?
When trying to log into the website http://www.sharebuilder.com/ I get the message Error trying to validate certificate from www.sharebuilder.com using OSCP - corrupted or unknown response. Error Code: -8073. I could log into this website in netscape before I upgraded from 6.2 to 6.2.1. In Mozilla 0.9.9 Build: 2002031104 I get the message above. IE works just fine with the site. Is this a problem with the site, it's certificate, or a problem with the OSCP?
Re: The Standard
blackbox wrote: ¿What make them qualify to be categorized and be named 'standards'? If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, standard-defining organization. For instance: Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comments: http://www.ietf.org/rfc World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations /Jonas
Re: Annoying Javascript bug?
Is there anyway to stop Javascript looping endless times? or config
Mozilla somehow, that it ask first if user want to launch Telnet?
If it's a pretty standard endeless loop, like the following:
while(true){ .}
then IE detects this, and gives you a warning before running the code.
Mozilla doesn't do this, but it should. :)
Re: The Standard
Jonas Jørgensen typed: blackbox wrote: ¿What make them qualify to be categorized and be named 'standards'? If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, standard-defining organization. For instance: Internet Engineering Task ForceRequest For Comments: http://www.ietf.org/rfc World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations /Jonas Which Netscape only started to care about when they became the minority in the browser market, then they started to cry foul. It is MS Explorer that defines the standards used, not the w3c. The w3c means nothing. -- Kyle It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated - Alec Bourne
Re: using Keyword Search to POST form data
grayrest wrote:
The Keyword search (http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=55 for
those not in the know) is great, but I would really like to be able to
send the info via POST due to
http://cgi.gatech.edu/cgi-bin/directory/lookup not accepting GET
variables. I did see the followup to that mozillanews article saying
that POST works for him, but I think that's due to the server running a
recent CGI.pm that can take both, but it does not work at the gatech
address (http://cgi.gatech.edu/cgi-bin/directory/lookup/whois?name=%s
fails). Is there any way to do this?
grayrest
Finally got it. For those that care:
function doForm(url,valary){
if(document.getElementById document.createElement){
var form = document.createElement(form);
document.getElementsByTagName(body)[0].appendChild(form);
form.setAttribute(action, url);
form.setAttribute(method, POST);
for(var i=0; i valary.length; i++){
var temp=document.createElement(input);
form.appendChild(temp);
temp.setAttribute(type, hidden);
temp.setAttribute(name, valary[i][0]);
temp.value = valary[i][1];
}
}
form.submit();
}
function doParse(url){
var pairs = url.substring(url.indexOf('?')+1).split();
url = url.substring(0,url.indexOf('?'));
var valary;
for (var i=0;ipairs.length;i++){
var pos = pairs[i].indexOf('=');
if (pos = 0){
var name = pairs[i].substring(0,pos);
var value = pairs[i].substring(pos+1);
if(valary)
valary[valary.length]=[name, value];
else
valary = [[name, value]];
}
}
return doForm(url,valary);
}
doParse(http://cgi.gatech.edu/cgi-bin/directory/lookup/whois?name=%s;);
As a bookmarklet:
javascript: function doForm(url,valary){ if(document.getElementById
document.createElement){ var form = document.createElement(form);
document.getElementsByTagName(body)[0].appendChild(form);
form.setAttribute(action, url); form.setAttribute(method, POST);
for(var i=0; i valary.length; i++){ var
temp=document.createElement(input); form.appendChild(temp);
temp.setAttribute(type, hidden); temp.setAttribute(name,
valary[i][0]); temp.value = valary[i][1]; } } form.submit(); } function
doParse(url){ var pairs = url.substring(url.indexOf('?')+1).split();
url = url.substring(0,url.indexOf('?')); var valary; for (var
i=0;ipairs.length;i++){ var pos = pairs[i].indexOf('='); if (pos = 0){
var name = pairs[i].substring(0,pos); var value =
pairs[i].substring(pos+1); if(valary) valary[valary.length]=[name,
value]; else valary = [[name, value]]; } } return doForm(url,valary); }
doParse(http://cgi.gatech.edu/cgi-bin/directory/lookup/whois?name=%s;);
to use, change the end URL to be whatever you like, you can place as
many variables on it as you want, the script should handle it.
grayrest
Re: What the hell is OSCP?
On 03/17/2002 3:51 PM, Jonathon Lamon wrote: When trying to log into the website http://www.sharebuilder.com/ I get the message Error trying to validate certificate from www.sharebuilder.com using OSCP - corrupted or unknown response. Error Code: -8073. I could log into this website in netscape before I upgraded from 6.2 to 6.2.1. In Mozilla 0.9.9 Build: 2002031104 I get the message above. IE works just fine with the site. Is this a problem with the site, it's certificate, or a problem with the OSCP? OSCP = Online Status Certificate Protocol EDIT / Prefs / Privacy Security / Validation -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: The Standard
Netscape Basher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Standards] Which Netscape only started to care about when they became the minority in the browser market, then they started to cry foul. This is true. It is MS Explorer that defines the standards used, not the w3c. The w3c means nothing. Are you expressing an opinion as to the state of things, or the way you think things should be. I find it helps keep your thinking clear if you make the distinction. -- Kyle It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated - Alec Bourne What a terribly clumsy formulation! -- Erik Corry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interviewer: Real programmers use cat as their editor. Bill Joy: That's right! There you go! It is too much trouble to say ed, because cat's smaller and only needs two pages of memory.
Re: What the hell is OSCP?
I found it, just after I wrote the message. Thanks. Jay Garcia wrote: On 03/17/2002 3:51 PM, Jonathon Lamon wrote: When trying to log into the website http://www.sharebuilder.com/ I get the message Error trying to validate certificate from www.sharebuilder.com using OSCP - corrupted or unknown response. Error Code: -8073. I could log into this website in netscape before I upgraded from 6.2 to 6.2.1. In Mozilla 0.9.9 Build: 2002031104 I get the message above. IE works just fine with the site. Is this a problem with the site, it's certificate, or a problem with the OSCP? OSCP = Online Status Certificate Protocol EDIT / Prefs / Privacy Security / Validation
Re: The Standard
what makes them has that recognition, be trustworthy, and be able to define an standard? I have visited those sites many times, and i still have not found when, where, how and why the standard was born. Jonas Jørgensen wrote If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, standard-defining organization. For instance: Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comments: http://www.ietf.org/rfc World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations /Jonas
Bottom taskbar in Mozill 0.9.9
Downloaded Mozilla 0.9.9 on my WinMe machine and loving it. I'm having a slight problem however with the bottom task bar. It seems that half of it is viewable and the other half is not. Look at it and see for yourself. -- Wayne Alligood/Amelia Island, Florida Compaq Computer running Windows XP/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Words rightly spoken are like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Image1.psp Description: Binary data inline: Image1.jpg
Re: using Keyword Search to POST form data
Finally got it. For those that care: (Sniped) Nice job :-)
Re: The Standard
Netscape Basher wrote: Jonas Jørgensen typed: blackbox wrote: ¿What make them qualify to be categorized and be named 'standards'? If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, standard-defining organization. For instance: Internet Engineering Task ForceRequest For Comments: http://www.ietf.org/rfc World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations /Jonas Which Netscape only started to care about when they became the minority in the browser market, then they started to cry foul. It is MS Explorer that defines the standards used, not the w3c. The w3c means nothing. Kyle, Kyle, Kyle . . . : You /know/ that argument is hog-wash, 'cos the only way in which you can legitmate it is by reference to market share, which results in the tautology: IE is standard because it has the biggest market share; therefore, because it has the largest market share, it is the standard. 'Standard' in this case stands apart from any consideration of market share. Standards (in this case, largely defined by the W3C) are something browsers (IE, NS, Moz, Opera, whatever) are supposed to implement in a consistent manner so that /mark-up/ will be displayed consistently; hence, the issue isn't 'standard' /per se/ but rather /compliance/ with those standards. Not to have standards -- let alone a consistent implementation of those standards -- will not only result in chaos. I, for one, don't want to go back to the days of proprietary tags and extensions. Further, the problem in allowing IE to 'be' or 'define' the 'standard' is that you end up marking up around the quirks of the browser (that is, the lapses with its standards compliance), and the moment a newer version of IE, say, implements standards better, or a more standards-compliant browser becomes the dominant browser, those IE-defined standards will come back to bite you. Here endeth the lecture. Brian -- We sail tonight for Singapore | We're all as mad as hatters here I've fallen for a tawny moor | Took off to the land of Nod Drank with all the Chinamen | Walked the sewers of Paris I danced along a colored wind | Dangled from a rope of sand You must say goodbye to me -- Tom Waits, 'Singapore'
Re: Mozilla 0.9.9 Drudge Report
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: Glenn Miller wrote: ---snip--- And besides, boasting of such certification only makes you look like an ego-centered bozo, IMHO. Can you understand my point, Phil'? Glenn Miller -- What some people have against Open Source Software is what Fundamentalist Christians or Moslems have against Knowledge. Actually, no. Since it took great effort to pass the certification. And the same Certification for Electronics is available from the same association in countries all over the world. And I've been signing my name this way since 1973 when i passed the certification. To your way of thinking, A person that becomes a medical Doctor should never ever under any circumtances use Dr in front of his name. Or that a Person that receives some type of Docorate Degree can not use PhD at end of his or her name. Or one that gets a dgree in Electrical Engineering can't use EE at the end. Or mecahnical Engineer can't use ME. Many lawyers use the sufic PC at end of there name. Sounds like a good argument. Check my sender name. Certified Loser ;)
